Late Edition: Howard Dean - John McCain Is "A Flawed Candidate"
By Logan Murphy Saturday Mar 01, 2008 6:02pm
DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, appeared on today's Late Edition to talk about the campaign and the race on the Democratic side. Howard did a good job deflecting Wolf Blitzer's doom and gloom for the Democrats line of questioning. Each time Blitzer would ask him about the tension between Senators Clinton and Obama, Dean would fire back with the reality of John McCain's lack of ethics and credibility.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
While I don't completely agree with Dean's assertion that some of the negative campaigning that's occurred between the Democratic candidates isn't an issue, I was encouraged to see how aggressively he pushed back at Blitzer, staying focused, cutting through the spin and charging right at John McCain's weaknesses.
Dean: "...Look, John McCain is a flawed candidate. Here's a guy who is a typical situational ethicist, he runs on his integrity, but he doesn't seem to have any. We're familiar with the fact that he got on the ballot in Ohio with what now turns out to be false pretenses. He qualified because he was taking public financing, and now he says he's not going to. He doesn't have the permission of the FEC to do that, and just this week he refused to denounce and reject John Hagee, a militant, anti-Catholic right wing pastor and John McCain has a history of doing what it takes regardless of what the ethics of this are. I think he's going to be a flawed candidate, I don't think people want four more years of what is essentially four more years of George Bush."
Login or Register to post comments.
Dean should teach ALL Dem candidates to speak like that - go right back at the Repigs!
Oooooh.....First!
this comment will reveal how I spend waaay too much time on the computer, but if I could copy n' paste Howard's balls onto every member of congress, why...
dean's the best president america never had.
All I want to know is if Wolf asked Dean about the Superdelegates. That is the only question that Dean needs to answer now.
not that is will do any good with this new attorney general, but
there is serious doubt that mcliar qualifies to run for president
since he is not a clear "natural born" citizen of the USA.
once again crooked issues surround his right to even be on the
ohio ballot, since he DID NOT get the required signatures to
be on the ballot. more and more gop lies and deceptions.
I don't think John McCain can last the distance to the election - he doesn't look well and he hasn't got the ticker. I'm wondering if the Repubs are going to have a candidate? This is an honest question as there's a lot I don't know about American election procedure ... can people still nominate to run and until when can they do it? What would happen if they all (repubs) fell by the wayside?
As much as I think Hillary's a strong woman... I also don't think Hillary can stick it. She's going to dissemble in some measure - the stress is going to really take it's toll on her. This is going to be a very interesting election.
.
And don't forget, McCain voted FOR torture!
.
Notice how that fucking scum Blitzer tries to equate Hillary and Barack's spats to the OUTRIGHT LIES of that demented old fucking asshole McCain! Wolf's a fucking slime.
We need a new Musical to get the word out.
This is the new Democratic party.
Obama and Dean know how to stand up for themselves and for us. They can take a punch and come back even stronger.
Dean is a stand up guy, and if anybody can unite this party after this clusterf*ck of a primary, he can. He also seemed to put a near end to the Florida-Michigan issue as well. Rules are rules. If you don't like them, change them, but not in the middle of the game.
Frantic right-wing commentators, used to eight years of Karl Rove-type malice, lies and innuendo, are getting very close to calling Obama a n****r and if and when they do, they will discover that the black community has not forgotten the ugliness of Katrina or many years of social repression.
Merp™ @ 11:
Actually Dean's the puncher. Obama seems to be doing some sort of Judo neither Hillary or republican can figure out.
It will be Barack Hussein Obama in a land slide come November. 60% to 37% and that includes dangling chads,Diebold fixing and voter disqualifications.
vonrking @ 13:
As Jon Stewart said "He see's The Matrix"!
McCain is weak, he lacks integrity as Dean says, and would be another BushCo. He's lost the crucial Catholic swing vote with his courting the hate vote of people like Hagee.
boooo - Yaaaaahh!
Howard Dean is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party. He is a visionary and a strategic thinker and Barack Obama is incorporating Dean's 50 State Plan in his race for the nomination. That is why Barack is gathering all this grassroots support. It is about us and not him. For Hillary, it is about her and not us.
Lynda from Australia @ 7:
Think the honest election. People nominate wayside candidate. Honest American procedure can dissemble interesting Repubs. There’s people to think - don’t think. Distance doesn’t have a lot. The toll is a well. Question people - they think. Don’t stress.
I like Dean, a lot.
Voted for Obama in the CT primary.
But think McCain might be an interesting president. He's got a lot of built-up anger and is vindictive. Imagine McCain as president turning his anger on the one who has so humiliated him, G.W. Bush. It could be wonderful to watch.
Think the honest election. People nominate wayside candidate. Honest American procedure can dissemble interesting Repubs. There’s people to think - don’t think. Distance doesn’t have a lot. The toll is a well. Question people - they think. Don’t stress.
Huh? Sorry, I don't follow ANY of that. Some kind of bizarre code?
If Mr. Dean spoke of my great, great grandfather like that I'd sock him!
I guess Wolf Blitzkrieg has never seen a political campaign. Sniping? Fuck yeah! They're both out running for the same job! By the way, that little clip of Hillary illustrates perfectly why she is losing.
Situational Ethicist
Man, what a great name to stick on McCain. Democrats should do that with every GOP candidate. It'll be great fun, too, because most of the reichwing babblers couldn't even pronounce it!
After watching Clinton and Obama on 60-Minutes just now, Dean certainly has his work cut out for him once a nominee is determined. When asked whether Obama is a Muslim, Clinton said no, "not as far as I know." WTG Hillary.
Superb showing by Howard Dean. He took their attempts to derail the conversation towards focusing on the Hillary vs. Obama battle, right back to the important matter of ethics and honesty, attacking McCain on his supposed strengths.
Every Dem should watch this and listen and learn from Dean. This is how you handle the media. I have rarely been this proud of a Dem showing on t.v.
SK @ 20
Think the honest election. People nominate wayside candidate. Honest American procedure can dissemble interesting Repubs. There’s people to think - don’t think. Distance doesn’t have a lot. The toll is a well. Question people - they think. Don’t stress.
Huh?
Its amazing, from being the object of merciless ridicule for "the scream" Dean has become one of the biggest assets of the Democratic party over the last 3 or 4 years.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Biff Limbaugh @ 4:
Hear, hear!
I love Howard Dean. I was active on his campaign in 2004, and would have loved to have seen him respond like this to the Oval Office Orangutan during those debates.
This is the man who assumed the governorship of Vermont upon the death of his predecessor, and did so with aplomb. (Officials had to tear him away from one of his patients in order to swear him in. He was working with a patient at his and his wife's medical practice when the governor passed away, and kept shooing away Vermont's officials, upset that they'd dare interrupt a doctor/patient appointment.)
This is the man who balanced Vermont's budgets and kept spending low (to the chagrin of the legislature's left wing).
This is the man who, with the balanced budgets, created near universal health care in the state, and established a program to give low-income new parents free aid in raising their kids to keep them out of trouble (to the chagrin of the legislature's right wing).
This is the man who, as governor, told President Bush to go fuck himself on No Child Left Behind, and worked without federal funding for Vermont's education.
This is the man who could easily have vetoed the Civil Unions bill in order to save political face, but who instead, campaigned for its acceptance afterwards in a bullet proof vest, successfully challenging people to understand that it was the right thing to do in a country that prides itself on equal rights.
This is the man who ran the original netroots campaign.
This is the man who was among the original outspoken opponents to the war in Iraq.
This is the man who, despite having been attacked by the Democratic establishment in 2004 and despite the media's having crucified him for an unfortunately belted "Yee-ha," campaigned vociferously for John Kerry -- even debating in his stead against Ralph Nader.
This is the man who, upon the Democrats' losing yet another election they should have won, took over the DNC, and implemented the campaigns that won Congress back in 2006 -- plans that were attacked yet again by many in the establishment.
And this is the man who knows how to respond to questions about his worries over the "sniping" between Obama and Clinton -- by deflecting the issue to how awful the Republicans are. (No, Wolf, that doesn't worry me. They're comparing their records and experience. That's not the kind of ethical problem that John McCain has. ~~ paraphrase.)
I love Howard Dean!
"I don’t think John McCain can last the distance to the election - he doesn’t look well and he hasn’t got the ticker."
Don't make assumptions about the ticker. Cheney's gone over 7 years, and will easily last all 8. Of course, being undead and only owning a heart for decorative purposes does help.
Biff Limbaugh @ 4:
Howard Dean states that "...Look,John McCain is a flawed candidate." One wonders if it was Dean's intent to issue such a statement that is so dripping with irony. Both Clinton and Obama's health care plan leaves the insurance companies in the equation, while managing to leave out the words single payer. Both of these alleged liberals have made no mention of the bloated military budget, a military which already is the largest in the world. Both of these alleged anti-war candidates are against the idea of immediately withdrawing the troops from that abattoir in Iraq, thus increasing the chances that more American soldiers will return to this country unjustifiably maimed and crippled. Both Obama and Clinton speak quite highly of Israel while rarely if ever mentioning the suffering that the Palestinian people have had to endure from Israel. Both of these alleged progressives are against impeaching one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of this country. Both Obama and Clinton have received significant contributions from Wall Street and other major corporations.
Dean will rail [justifiably] against McCain's credentials as a presidential nominee while totally ignoring the flaws of his own party's nominees. All the more reason to lament the fact that the networks, along with the Democrats and the Republicans, will in all likelihood make sure that Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney are seen nowhere near a debating stage when the debates are launched in the summer of 2008. After all, the last thing that the mass media and the major political parties wish for the American people to see is for an independent candidate to expose the Democrats and Republicans for the frauds that they actually are.
I would love to ask Gov Dean a couple questions like, "Why is the DNC punishing Florida Dem voters for a decision made by the Republican legislature and the Republican Gov?" "Why hasn't Obama been sanctioned for campaigning in FL when the candidates were ordered not to?" "Why hasn't the DNC put a stop to the Obama "Be a Democrat for a Day" movement inviting Republicans to hijack our party by voting "against Hillary" in the Dem primary?" Now there's an article on Huffpo stating that Obama will put Republicans in his cabinet. Well, I guess so, they helped to get him elected.
"I don’t think people want four more years of what is essentially four more years of George Bush.”
I don't even want to live through four more minutes of George Bush!
Hah. If only all Dems had this much spine. Go Dean!
Paula @ 23:
Are you sure McCain isn't your great, great grandfather?
I love Howard Dean. Presently, he is one of a few Democrats I really have a lot of respect and adoration for. Why did we not elect him over Kerry? To think we passed him up for someone like Kerry gives me heartache. The Democratic Party is very lucky to have Howard Dean. They (we) should thank our lucky stars he is on our side. I Hope the Democratic leadership appreciate all he has done for our party. I'm afraid without Howard, we would have no one sticking up for us. Thanks Mr Dean. You are a true patriot!!!
liberalista @ 36:
What is wrong with having different voices in your cabinet? back in the day our leaders welcomed a variety of voices so that they could make better decisions for our people. I'm not saying I support anything Republicans have done lately, but it would be nice to see these idiots put their differences aside and work for the greater good that is the citizens of America.
As for the rest of your rant...it sounds like your just ass sore because your candidate is having her ass handed too her...with or without Florida and Michigan's delegates.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
vonrking @ 29:
I remember when Dean was put in that post as DNC Chairman and people said “what the fuck is going on?” “Dean?” Howard Dean the hot head screamer?” Well as it turns out he may be the best DNC Chairman in a long long time. Howard Dean is EXACTLY what the DNC needs. On point, take no hostages, right in the middle and very very smart. After this primary season he will bring the Party together and they will be pointed in the correct (I hate the word “right” these days) direction and will annihilate the Republican candidate. With this appearance on Wolfie’s Sunday Morning show we have only seen the beginning. LOOK OUT!!!!! The shit is going to hit the fan and it is going to be blowing at the Republican candidate. Heeeee haaaaawwwwwww, yowzaaaaaa.
My god, can you imagine what kind of President Dean would have been? I think he would have taken no shit from anybody and would have done the correct thing as opposed to dumb fuck Bush.
Running out the door now, but -- did I just see Dean read from a document that he had ready to throw back in Blitzer's face when Blitzer tried to play gotcha? If so, very cool!
I liked Dean very much in 2004 -- he got my vote and donations. Glad he's still fighting on our side.
SK @ 20:
[Deleted. Rude-Sitemonitor]
VietVet8666 @ 21:
[Do you just come to this site to abuse posters with whom you don't agree? Do you need a time out? I can arrange that. Knock it off with the superior attitude-Sitemonitor]
Obama Dean '08
Christy Hannity @ 50:
Not bad but Dean is better of the Dems in his position right now.
Bush committed an internation war crime and was reelected.
Flawed? Dean is an idiot.
dadams @ 6:
IOKIYAR......two laws......one for Americans, one for Repubs.
The MSM is owned by and has become a tool of big busines to influence the public to vote against its own interests.
To that end, programming content and format are designed to reflect negatively on progressive thought by exploiting extraneous issues. Howard Dean is one of the few Democrats who can effectively deal with this type of attack and come out ahead. We need more like him.
anon @ 53:
Hmm. It appears that you are arguing that Dean is underestimating McCain by calling him merely "flawed." You underestimate Dean.
First, there is a great deal of reasonable doubt that Bush won at all in 2004.
More importantly, assuming that Bush did win legitimately in 2004, it was because he successfully exploited Americans' fear of both terrorists and gay people. That is the kind of exploitation that candidate Dean would not have stood for. He would not allow the Republicans to frame the debate the way Democrats have for so many years.
Thus, as DNC chair, when idiots like Wolfman Blitzkrieg yammer about things about which they would like Dean to be worried, he always manages to turn the question into an opportunity to point out McCain's flaws. It's how you deal with the likes of Wolfman. Dean is already out there deflecting all attacks on the Democrats, and constantly noting McCain's weak points.
It's how you campaign to win. That's what he was doing in this clip.
Way to go, Howard. Wolfie came with a knife to a gunfight figuring Dean would be another Democratic sap he could roll over. Think again, Wolfie Blitzkrieg. You are way out of your league.
Bravo, Howard!!!
Saturday’s contributions to the McAKA list, defined:
and
The entire current (as of Friday 12:01 am PST) McAKA List – alphabetized for easier reference:
Erroll @ 35:
Ah yes, having a somewhat nutty truther around does make for an interesting public spectacle. McKinney couldn't even hold her own office after her various controversies. If we're going to put anyone up on the debate stage then let's let the other fringe types speak. We could get a really amazing debate if we could get an intelligent design evangelical up there with a Stormfront candidate along with a militant member of the Nation of Islam, maybe toss in a member of the militant wing of the Salvation Army while we're at it.
Now that would be a debate.
Let's not forget that Dean's best tactic might be his 50 state strategy (which still drives the DLC crazy since it's been effective). He's used it to successfully wrangle more then a few elected offices from Republicans where there hadn't been Democrats in a very long time. It's thinking like that that has been arguably his greatest asset and that's why he ought to stay as DNC chair instead of being elevated to a higher role in a Dem administration.
We need him down in the trenches fighting the election battles and keeping an eye on that ball, even if he'd be an asset to a cabinet.
Love Dr. Dean...
I will always be sad that he wasn't elected in 2004....
Erroll @ 35:
While your points are good, to have left wing third-party or independent candidates seek the presidency is not the right way to seek change. Nader would do far more good for the country by working for comprehensive electoral reform at all levels of government rather than injecting himself into races for the highest office in the country.
McKinney, to her credit, does indeed work for electoral reform. It is one of the things I truly admire about her.
Until we have comprehensive electoral reform -- that is, we change the manner by which we allocate representation in our legislatures -- third parties will not be able to break the duopoly stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans currently have. Nader's perennial presidential candidacy only hurts that cause by making third party causes appear petulant.
Roark77 @ 60:
Excellent attempt at co- mingling the extreme elements that you mentioned with McKinney and, I assume, Nader. Apparently, you seem to be taking a page out of the novel Animal Farm, in which all points of view are allowed as long as those points of view are either Democratic or Republican. What you did not defend, because in all likelihood you cannot defend, is what I had mentioned at comment #35, which is that the television networks, with the blessings of both the Democrats [the alleged party of the people] and the Republicans, made sure that Nader's voice was silenced during the debates during the summer of 2000. It is ironic that you mention the militant organization Stormfront since you and other alleged liberals are seemingly in mortal fear that either Nader or McKinney will expose them for the charlatans that they are in the unlikely event that either one of them would actually be allowed to participate in debates in front of the American people. Certainly the last thing the Democrats and the Republicans would want to have happen is to allow the American public to hear opinions that have not been co-opted by the mass media and the two major corporate parties in power.
Erroll @ 64:
Extreme and novel points defend networks of Democrats of Republicans. Voice the militant fear for unlikely debates. American opinions and corporate elements apparently seem democratic. Television party debates that are co-opted attempt to view Democratic likelihood. Mention liberals. Fear Democrats-Republicans.
Karen at #63
I think that your comments coincided as I was writing mine at #64. You state that "... to have left wing or third party candidates seek the presidency is not the right way to seek change." With all due respect, that statement is simply brilliant in its arrogance. Please direct to me and to others on this blog where it states in the U.S. Constitution where only Democrats and Republicans have the [so-called] wisdom to run this country. Have you actually examined the positions of both Obama and Clinton? As I tried to point out at comment # 35, both of these alleged liberals are against the immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from that charnel house in Iraq, thus greatly increasing the chances that more of them will end up in Walter Reed ad VA hospitals across the country severely burned, blinded, and especially brain damaged, paralyzed, missing a few arms and legs, and suffering from the effects of PTSD. Yet these two alleged agents of change claim that they support the troops. The soldiers in that hell hole are hardly in desperate need of friends like these two. They are against the idea of single payer health care. They wish to continue to fund both the bloated military budget and the occupation. The list goes on. But yet you believe that the worst thing that could possibly happen is for a third party candidate to actually challenge the ideas of the two major parties that are in power in this country.
As I stated in comment #64, your thinking, like Roark77, seems to be right out of the novel Animal Farm. All opinions are allowed and all parties can run for office, as long as those parties are either Democrat or Republican. So much for my apparently naive belief that we as Americans are living in a democracy.
DUH !
Erroll @ 66:
That's not what I was saying. I was not arguing that Democrats and/or Republicans are the only parties that should be running for president, nor was I implying that the two parties currently in duopoly control of the government have any special wisdom. They don't.
I am an activist for electoral reform precisely to break the duopoly. It serves our country poorly.
Yeah. And I dislike both of them. I was a supporter of neither, and hoped that there would be more of a choice by the time the elections rolled around to my state. Alas.
I said that you had good points. I agree with you.
Brilliant in arrogance better describes your ability to read things into my statements that were not there. I am very active in changing our electoral landscape to give third parties genuine viability. I have written about this subject extensively.
What I do not believe is that the best way to go about breaking the duopoly is to have third party candidates seek the presidency. This is not because I do not believe that they have a right to do so, nor because I think their positions are per se illegitimate, or that the current duopoly parties should not be challenged. Far from it. And I resent your telling me that I believe so.
No, I believe that the best way to break the pernicious duopoly is to work for comprehensive electoral reform. At all levels of government. This is an absolute must. Our whole system is broken. And we must work to reform that system.
Go back and read my original response to you, and you will see that you are misinterpreting me. You will find in me a great friend to third party causes, and for reinvigorating the democracy we have lost. I post often here about electoral reform precisely because I want to break the insidious Dem/Rep duopoly.
If you're unfamiliar with alternative electoral systems and how they might be implemented in this country, give me the chance, Erroll, and I can introduce you to some fantastic writings that will aid your abilities to make third parties viable -- far more than by seeking to have third party candidates debate in the current presidential elections.
I would also like to add that, as Nader has correctly observed, if the Democratic nominee, whomever it may be, cannot decisively beat McCain, who may be even more militant than Bush, then the Democratic party should just hang their heads in shame, pack it in, pick up the pieces and start all over again. If the Democrats had an ounce of brains, they would be moving to the left of McCain on most of the issues but instead both Clinton and Obama seem to desire to be more belligerent than Bush and McCain. Leave it to the Democrats to make sure that they end up shooting themselves in the foot by moving to the right of McCain, as if the world has not seen enough cowboy diplomacy from a United States president.
Erroll @ 66:
Your candidates respect arrogance. The wisdom of soldiers will challenge ideas. The thinking seems novel and parties are writing change. Respect others. This country tried Iraq. The hospitals and damaged legs change troops. Hell-budget, animal-parties. My living democracy was not brilliant arrogance. Please have wisdom.
SK @ 20
SK @ 65
SK @ 70
Generate words random. But select appropriated political. Cryptic perhaps on blogging for maybe. SK does yes.
Erroll @ 69:
This is very true. But, by entering the race himself, he undermines his own observation. After all, his entry into the race only makes it harder for the Democrats to win decisively.
Wouldn't it be better for us all if Nader made those kinds of statements not as a presidential candidate himself, but as an activist who could really help us get our feet in the door when working for electoral reform?
Karen @ 71:
Blogging on.
I want 8 more years of Ron Paul.......
I posted this about the Hagee brouhaha yesterday, but just to repeat, let's not forget that Grampa McCain is the Republican nominee by default. Just because he’s the last Republican left standing from among that half-ass bunch of wannabees doesn’t mean he’s a good candidate.
On the contrary, he’s proven himself to be inept, uninspired and uninspiring time and time again. With all his ethical baggage, his less-than scintillating charisma, not to mention the goddamn Iraqi war to hang around his neck, he’s toast come November. He’ll wish he’d never had the idea of running for President in the first place.
jason @ 5:
Both Dean and Convention Chair Nancy Pelosi have explicitly said that the Superdelegates WILL NOT override the popular will, and that the SDs will NOT divide the Convention.
If things turn out this week as they appear to be heading,
Obama/Clinton '08
chris @ 74:
Dismantling the National Park System and attacking the Hague if they arrest any of our warcriminals are how he wants to approach our future.
Disqualified.
Erroll @ 69:
More of Nader's line-drawing in the sand. The only reason why he gets into the race is in order to make proclamations. What a twit he became.
VoR @ 62:
No one was elected in 2004.
Gov. Dean made a VERY good choice for America.
He beat Bush, and Karl Rove didn't even see it coming.
Karen @ 72:
Karen, as I tried to point out, what Nader and perhaps Cynthia McKinney are attempting to do is offer the American public a candidate who is not beholden, to use Dickens' s words, to the vested interests. You and other liberals seem to be in such terror that Nader and McKinney would, despite what you seem to be saying, actually be giving Americans a viable alternative rather than have to choose between a Democrat and a Republican. You believe that in your wisdom Nader should be working as an activist. If he and McKinney choose to run for President, would you then condemn them to the eternal pangs of hell for daring to challenge the views of both parties?
You claim to be against the positions of both Obama and Clinton and yet you are quick to criticize and condemn Nader and McKinney who are themselves against the policies of Clinton and Obama. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As I tried to previously explain, living in a [supposed] democracy means being able to choose from more than just the two major parties but yet you, despite your denials, seem very much against the idea of either of these two allowing the American people to have a choice other than a Democrat or a Republican. Despite what you think, and the heresy that I propose, I still believe that if a third party candidate wishes to run, an American should be able to vote for that candidate without you [a liberal, no less] making him or her feel guilty or wrong for having done so.
Paul in LA @ 78:
Your specious reasoning, such as it is, does little to disprove the truth of what Nader has said. If the Democrats cannot decisively beat a war monger like McCain, then they should dissolve their party and start all over again.
Erroll @ 81:
Hilarious. Amazing that you lot think that's even a point to make. NO wonder you have ZERO representation in Congress. It's the nitwit argument that keeps on giving.
Nader would have been a good mayor, a good governor. But that's too much work within the system for him. He wants to be head of the new comic book, but, too bad, superheroes with no powers other than absurd critiques get nowhere.
Erroll @ 80:
And all I was saying was that running a third-party bid for the presidency is not a good way to go about doing that. In fact, I believe it only serves to undermine third-party causes.
I seem to believe that despite what I seem to be saying? Are you listening to yourself? Kindly refrain from telling me what I believe, and debate me on what I actually am saying.
Sure. I guess so. This is what you think I will be saying regardless of what I actually say, so, yeah. Doesn't matter that I already refuted this once. You're going to say that I say it no matter what.
What? I can't be independent? I can't criticize all of them? By the way, I actually praised Cynthia McKinney.
That phrase refers to hypocrisy. I'm not sure you know how to use it. I am not a hypocrite merely for criticizing Nader's strategy for breaking our duopoly party government.
You are clearly not interested in actually talking to me about electoral reform or what I believe. You would rather impute beliefs onto me, and argue with the beliefs you would like me to have. Any reasonable reader here can see that.
You have no idea what I believe, and you are not interested in learning it. I resent everything you have said about me, and regulars here know full well that I am an independent thinker who passionately calls for comprehensive electoral reform. You have no interest in learning about. Your only interest is in calling for the inclusion of third parties in the presidential debates, and yelling at anyone who calls that a bad strategy move.
I never called you a heretic. I simply disagreed with your strategy of breaking the two-party stranglehold.
If all you can do is tell me what I believe instead of actually talking to me and hearing what I am saying, then you're not worth talking to at all.
The only problem is that there is no FEC in essence of people in that job to actually perform any regulating. Right now the FEC is not functioning to provide such a letter tht Howard Dean rightfully displayed.
McCain is playing the system and there is no one at the FEC to rule.
So now what?
Robt @ 84:
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about Florida and Michigan. I'm from Michigan. Four years ago when Iowa and N.H gave us Kerry instead of the national favorite Howard Dean, we all wanted some say in the nomination process.
This year Iowa and N.H narrowed the field, but any of the top three were, by far, stronger candidates than ANY of the Republicans. So when they said my vote wouldn't count (because I'm from Michigan) I didn't care.
When I see Dr. Dean speak on CNN, I get pissed because CNN took the strongest candidate and implied he was a maniac. Dean would have crushed Bush. CNN and their ilk are responsible for 4 extra years of George Bush.
Florida and Michigan picked a fight. Lets fix the system. Not only should our pledged delegates not count, I want to make sure our super delegates are not counted (those who are responsible for my vote not counting). In return Carl Levin, John Dingell, John Conyers, and Dennis Archer (the only Democrats worth anything in the state) should have a loud voice in fixing the nomination process.
HOWARD FREAKING DEAN!!!!! Dude, imagine what this country would look like today after 3.5 years of the Dean administration.
Karen @ 83:
Karen
This will probably be like shouting into the wind but I think your indignation is quite unfounded. This is one of the more bizarre conversations [if one can call it that] that I have had on this blog. You claim that I am somehow placing words in your mouth when it is your very statements that I have been responding to. You resent it when I tried to point out that third party candidates have a right to run for office in this country even though you explicitly state at comment #68 that "What I do not believe that ... third party candidacies" should "...seek the presidency." Your words, not mine.
You criticize the positions of Obama and Clinton and bemoan the fact that there is less of a choice of whom to vote for in the election, while ignoring the fact that there will indeed be a choice, with either/or Nader and McKinney [daring] to run for president. Again, these choices do not have to be limited to only the Democrats or Republicans. Nor, as you seem to be implying, am I against election reform. But I certainly am against the idea of limiting the idea of who can or should be running for president in this country.
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
Oooohooo MAN! I was thinking the same thing the other day.
Though, as clearly ignorant and foolish as these reichwing talkies are, SURELY they wouldn't let such an incendiary word slip out...but I bet they're just WISHIN' they could. Bastards!
Paul in LA @ 76:
Nah...Obama/Edwards! I betcha 5 bucks caaaash moneys!
OK...let me comment on Dean...the more I hear him speak, and read stuff about him...the more I admire the man...He's sharp, and ain't afraid to set people straight when they bring up tired GOP talking points.
We need him to run for prez again.
Erroll @ 88
Well, you're right about one thing. It's not really a conversation. You want to know why I'm indignant? I'll show you.
Those are not my words at all. Those are your selective quotations.
These are my actual words at 68:
"I was not arguing that Democrats and/or Republicans are the only parties that should be running for president . . . . What I do not believe is that the best way to go about breaking the duopoly is to have third party candidates seek the presidency."
For you to alter that quote into “What I do not believe that … third party candidacies” should “…seek the presidency," is beyond the pale.
You are either seeing only what you want to see, or you are being deliberately mendacious.
No, I resent your telling me that that's what I resent. Head back up to comment 68, and you'll see that I said explicitly that third party candidates do have a right to run for the president. I simply question that strategy as a means of breaking the two-party stranglehold.
You seem unable to tell the difference. You seem incapable of understanding my position. You seem to believe that anyone who would rather that Nader not run for the presidency must necessarily desire that the choice be limited to Democrats and Republicans. How simplistic.
No, I'm not ignoring that. Again, I'm questioning the strategy of actually breaking the two-party stranglehold by having third party candidates run for president. Why is that so difficult to understand?
You maintain that having Nader and/or McKinney in the debates and in the race necessarily offers people more choices. To you, the math is simple: more candidates, more viewpoints, more choices. I disagree that the situation is that simple.
In our archaic and democracy-undermining system, third party bids for the presidency UNDERMINE THIRD PARTY CAUSES. I don't know how many times I can say that before you notice it. I'll say it again, THIRD PARTY BIDS FOR THE PRESIDENCY UNDERMINE THIRD PARTY CAUSES.
"How can that be?" you might be asking. In our archaic system, a Nader candidacy only forces people to vote tactically. They must decide whether to betray their true choices only to ensure that the greatest of the evils ultimately loses. It's our system that causes that to happen, and there's no way around it.
If we had a different system, for instance, if we had Instant Runoff Voting in this country, I would encourage Nader to run. If we had any other kind of electoral system, I would encourage Nader to run. But we don't. And for Nader to seek the highest office in the land, and thus force a tactical choice on people serves neither his cause nor democracy's. It only reinforces the perception that third parties will never be viable here, and that they can only spoil elections.
People don't even understand that it's the electoral system itself that causes the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. It's the electoral system. Until it is reformed, nothing will change. If people like Nader would work to reform it, we could better educate people about it. And have a REAL CHANCE at breaking the duopoly. His entering the race does not give us that real chance.
I never implied that you were against electoral reform. Curiously, though, this is the first time you've even mentioned electoral reform at all. You've accused me of "Animal Farm" thinking. You've told me that I'm terrified of having a third party bid. You've misquoted me. But you haven't really addressed electoral reform at all.
I have written extensively about how we actually can break the duopoly. I have devoted a good portion of my life in professional politics to it. I want to make multiple parties viable. It is my passion. But to you, since I don't think it's a good idea for Nader to run a third party bid for the presidency, then I must be either be suffering cognitive dissonance or against third parties altogether. That is what I resent, Erroll.
My only stance vis-a-vis you is that third party bids for the highest office in the land -- as opposed to working locally and bottom-up for electoral reform -- undermines, rather than furthers, a cause in which we both believe. I already offered to talk with you about, and link you to, writings on this very subject.
But all you seem capable of doing is responding by telling me that I don't believe third parties have a right to run for president, and that I'm ignoring the choice Nader and/or McKinney would present.
And you wonder why I'm indignant.
"I don't see how spending 66 months in a tiger cage qualifies John McCain to be President" _ Gloria Steinem
Wow. The '08 presidential campaign will be one of the most vicious of all time.
Karen @ 92:
I will attempt to make my point one last time, as it appears you are taking almost some type of masochistic glee in impugning what I am saying. Despite your belief, either the truncated version of your statement that I had written or your entire statement, "What I do not believe is that the best way to go about breaking the duopoly is to have third parties candidates seek the presidency" still, to me, indicates quite clearly that you are not in favor of a third party candidate running for president.
You certainly seem quite sensitive in having your opinions challenged or questioned. I realize that you may find this shocking but I do not happen to agree with what you have said. Again, it certainly appears that you have a great deal of difficulty dealing with someone who dares disagree with what you say. Try not to allow any disagreements that one may have vis a vis your opinions to affect you so deeply because it almost appears that you may be on the way to having an emotional breakdown. Practicing TM and/or yoga could certainly help your disposition and would, I believe, go a long way in helping reduce your stress levels, which appears to be abnormally high.
All the best.
A flawed candidate?
No shit sherlock.
Erroll @ 94
I accept your unconditional surrender.
Kerry beating out Dean will be seen as a major historical event in the future when all presidents are really smart advocates of the people, like he was.
I love how this country simply forgets what a difference having a good president can make (FDR)
Dean is typical of the classless libs running the Dem Party. McCain has shown more character, more class towards his opponenets, more love of his country than Dean has in his little pinky.
My party has been taken over by socialists, elitists, and kooks. I can't be in the same party as people like Dean, Michael Moore or Howling Harry. This party no longer represents the working class/middle class. It is the party of social special interest groups and has become worse than the Republicans.
People like Dean turn Dems into Independents or worse.....fix this mob of freaks called the Democratic Party..
My god, Errol, are you daft? It is clear to anyone reading that Karen is supportive of third parties but does not believe - for good reason - that their interests are best served by having candidates run for president. She has made clear that changing the electoral system to something like instant runoff or proportional representation would actually better serve these interests, but you fail to even acknowledge her position and continue to utter the same, vacuous mantra. Come on, man!
Login or Register to post comments.