Blogcritics: Comments on Don't Look Now, Here Comes The DeaNC!

Comment by RJ

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:45:26 EST

"Watch out David. Hal Pawluk will be here soon to tell you that there's nothing wrong with Social Security and it doesn't need to be reformed. After all the system is perfect and will never really run out of money. All facts are lies, all evidence is propraganda!" LOL!

Comment by RJ

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:42:50 EST

"However, Dean's rise is very Goldwaterish. Many Democrats have dug in their heels and decided if they can't win at least they can stand on principle and go down fighting. U have to respect that." I DO respect that. The Dems will likely remain a minority party for some time, but PRINCIPLES are what brings a party/movement to life. Dean, whatever his warts, is principled. If Dems follow his lead, they will be enjoying power again. But not for another decade or two...

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:17:04 EST

Well, I think President Clinton's advisors did finally get Senator Kerry to espouse a consistent message to the public. The before and after look at the Kerry Campaign shows disarray before, and vast improvements after. However, with that said, and as you have accurately pointed out, Senator Kerry never really moderated his message. Instead, he just made it more consistent. On issues such as marriage, even though President Clinton urged Kerry to support the several state amendments on the ballot to prevent the courts from redefining marriage, Kerry refused to do so. Oh well, c'est la vie. ;-) David

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:11:58 EST

David -- I have no idea why the Kerry people didn't channel Clinton-speak throughout the '04 campaign. Everytime I heard Billy C. speak, I thought: this is it, this is the winning formula. Glad to see I'm not the only one!

Comment by David Flanagan

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:57:20 EST

I think the person or people who take Clinton's lead will be where the mood of the country is heading. Eric, I completely agree. I also know that Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership Council, has been trying very hard to get other party leaders to take the same tone. Thanks, David

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:42:04 EST

Thanks for the link on the Van Dyk item. There were a lot of Dems who identified the future of Social Security as a problem, but are now content to take a different tack now that the other side has identified the same thing as the same problem. But, as for Dean v. McAuliffe, I don't know, David. The first order of business for the national chair of any political party is to be the chief fundraiser. It is the job of the party's Political Director to drive policy. Besides that, Democrats had moaned for years at how they lagged behind the GOP in fundraising, how if only they evened that score, an electoral sweep of the nation would follow. McAuliffe did his job. I would lay more blame at the feet of the pre-primary presidential candidates, who were not acting under the direction of the DNC. Oh, how McAulliffe wished they *had* been! These candidates took the Democratic party down the road it followed, which brings you back to Dean. It's hard to find a leader who will be all things to all people. I have my doubts that Dean can pull that off any better than McAuliffe. Maybe he can- the pressures are certainly different as Chair than as front-running presidential candidate.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:13:04 EST

Good post, David. I do take issue, however, with your assertion that Democrats must become more "moderate" to survive. That said, I agree that the Dems need to come up with an energetic, forward-looking and reform-minded agenda. Bill Clinton speaks fabulously on these points by the way. He talks about green energy and biotech and creating jobs while partnering with business: stuff you don't really hear about from major figures in either party. I think the person or people who take Clinton's lead will be where the mood of the country is heading.

Comment by Temple Stark

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:55:24 EST

Your timeline on surpluses is inaccurate. And besides, Daschle is only one man. You didn't just limit your criticism to one person. That's all. I'm not going to waste time on it further here.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:45:32 EST

Watch out David. Hal Pawluk will be here soon to tell you that there's nothing wrong with Social Security and it doesn't need to be reformed. After all the system is perfect and will never really run out of money. All facts are lies, all evidence is propraganda! Dave

Comment by David Flanagan

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:42:17 EST

Temple, Daschle turned against partial privatization for SS while the surpluses were still intact. So, unless I'm missing something, I think your point here is moot. Thanks, David

Comment by Temple Stark

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:35:41 EST

Did you not read my comment and the difference that means to the country and to the budget? Clearly I know you talked about Daschle et al otherwise my post would have had no basis for being.

Comment by David Flanagan

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:35:05 EST

Marvel, Personally, I respect people who stand on principle. There are many on this board whom I disagree with but still respect because they stand on principle. The only issue I take with any politician of any party is when they stand on principles which are not reflective of their base. We could probably debate that one for ages, but I think personally that too many DNC have forgotten what their base values. As I say, that is just my opinion and I don't say that Republicans aren't guilty of the same; just less guilty. :-) Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:31:45 EST

Temple, But the fact is, I did make the point that some, such as Daschle, had specifically expressed support for a partial privatization of SS. He changed his tune after President Bush expressed his support for that option. Thanks, David

Comment by Temple Stark

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:18:50 EST

A good post, however I have to take exception to this part, if only for its willful ignorance of changng times: >>Before Bush became President, Clinton, Daschle, and other Democrats were gung ho to reform Social Security; and quite a few of them offered ideas related to the partial privatization of SS The obvious difference is that at that time there was a surplus and projected surpluses for years to come. The talk of reform made more sense then because the country could afford it. Also "reform" is a pretty vague term. Democrats were for reform and so is President bush. But the "reform" in question is not the same at all.

Comment by R Marvel

Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:58:13 EST

Mr. Flanagan makes excellent observations on Democratic failure. I personally think Democrats will continue to lose until the current generation of leaders are gone. The Pelosi's and Kennedy's of Congress act like deers in headlights -- totally unaware of the shift to the right that America has taken as a nation in the past 20 years. However, Dean's rise is very Goldwaterish. Many Democrats have dug in their heels and decided if they can't win at least they can stand on principle and go down fighting. U have to respect that.