Howard Dean talks straight

[lookout123]

Rush Limbaugh is a centrist?

*lookout123 searches through previous posts looking for mention of limbaugh, not finding any looks through previous 3000 posts searching for positive comment about limbaugh* nope, couldn't find any.

tw, what is your preoccupation with limbaugh? i understand he is an asshat. so is hannity. you are kind of preaching to the choir, as i don't think there are any cellarites looking to those types for talking points or answers. but to answer your question (notice how some of us actually answer questions?) no - rush limbaugh is not a centrist. he is a right wing hack. he is a failed rock disc jockey. he is a failed nfl commentator. he is a recovering drug addict. he is ablow hard who has built a media empire around his image. he is not a centrist.

now that we've covered rush limbaugh, for this thread anyway, lets move on to the actual topic at hand.

for once, i agree with tw - dean is not the problem with the democratic party. he is, however, a symptom. for some reason the D leadership doesn't recognize that after all the blustering and pandering, a majority of this country falls into the political middleground. if politics were a football field - *oversimplification alert* limbaugh and hannity would be on far right 1 yard line, GWB would be on the 20, McCain would be on the 30. on the far left you'd have franken and rhodes on the 1, dean/kennedy on the 20, hillary on the 30, etc. the problem is that the majority of americans are hanging out between the 40's wondering when a political leader will come represent them.

the average american wants a leader who looks and sounds like them. someone they may disagree with on certain issues,but who they believe will do the best they can. the average american is sick of being a part of a D party that looks and sounds like T Kennedy and Daschle - two men who ooze false sincerety. to be fair they are also sick of being a part of a party that looks and sounds like Delay, limbaugh, and hannity. i still believe that is why bush really won - he looks like an average guy and sounds like one too. nevermind that he is obscenely wealthy and went through the ivy league - he looks and sounds like one of us.

ah, whatever - i guess the point is that most of us who refuse to join a party are dieing for someone to step forward to represent us. Howard Dean isn't that guy. it doesn't matter what he really thinks, it is how he presents himself. we are @3.5 years from the next election and he is already sounding like a firebrand. that isn't what average americans are looking for.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

for once, i agree with tw - dean is not the problem with the democratic party. ... the average american is sick of being a part of a D party that looks and sounds like T Kennedy and Daschle

The latter is a classic example of literally a 'piss poor' politician. He had no underlying strategic objective. He was a peace maker at all cost - even supporting the president on an unjustified war in Iraq. He even blindly believed propaganda that contradicted underlying facts. But more damning, Daschle only sought compromise even at the expense of a strategic objective. In doing so, he abandoned fundamental principles that made America work and that made the Democratic Party so successful. I would not be surprised to learn Daschle thought Saddam attacked the WTC, Pentagon, and field in PA. Daschle had no grasp of issues. He only wanted the safe and easiest solution rather than first identifying what was and was not needed.

A benchmark example is the debt. Both George Sr and Clinton solved debt problems - literally confronting the various stock market meltdowns, the S&L crisis, the 1990 near banking disasters that almost bankrupt CitiBank, the hedge fund disaster (especially Long Term Capital Management) and numerous other financial and economic problems. In some cases these two men did so by following the advice of their subordinates rather than follow their own feelings. Both men also had competent subordinates.

But now we have the same problem all over again. And what was Daschle's response? Let them do it. Pick and choose the battles rather than pick and choose which principles that Democratic Party stood for. Make decisions based upon political expediency rather than upon facts.

The current Social Security debate is a classic example. A well lead Democratic Party would be making bumper crops over the scandalous way that Social Security is being run into the ground and will be undermined by the Repulican agenda. Any money removed by the Treasury to pay government bills is replaced with a Treasury Bond. Entire SS (highway trust fund, and FAA trust fund) problems solved. But Democrats instead cry as if SS was only some third rail. Even Democrats are playing politics rather than addressing issues.

Another issue being left for a 'graveyard' mentality is identity theft. Until it gets so massive as to threaten most everyone, the Democrats are just sitting on their asses - letting Republicans instead pass laws to empower government (ie Patriot Act) rather than let the consumer protect himself. Don't worry. The government will give you papers so that government can monitor you. And government will prosecute the identity theif AFTER he has done the damage. Meanwhile, the problem with identity theft - a defective system based upon driver's licenses and SS numbers - remains in place with no solution.

Perfect example of a strategic objective that a responsible Democratic party could campaign on. A system so that you - and not the government - can prove who you are, and so that you can protect your identity. Functions also necessary to protect personal freedoms are ignored even by the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Republicans advocate a system equivalent to the Nazi version of "Show me your identity papers". Passports with electronic data so that government can protect itself first; the people second.

Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could campaign for the personal freedoms such as identity protection and who could campaign for a return to economic prosperity (currently stifled by massive government deficient spending)? No. Not one. Clinton understood a strategic objective when he said, "It’s the economy stupid". Clinton targeted problems of that time. Currently few Democratic leaders do that today.

[lookout123]

a horrifying thought just came to me. tw - are you Bill Clinton?

if so, is the cellar just a cog in your plan to ensure that the american public is aware of the greatness they had in you?

if not, get off the guy's crank already. he was a decent president, personal choices aside. he didn't screw too much up, but he didn't accomplish anything spectacular, either. why exactly are you so in love with old Bill?