Dan Conley is off the bandwagon

Dan was never on the bandwagon, so it’s hard for him to get off.

I agree his commentary needs more discussion, though.

Keep the faith Rick. I agree with Luke about Conley. While it’s true he writes well, Conley was right to give up writing under the name Deanblog. Writing there implied somehow he was hoping for the best for Dean, a role he never wanted. Conley seems to have a deaf ear to a lot of what makes Dean appealing, so I doubt he was ever really on the bandwagon. Instead, in my opinion, he places appearing presidenial as more important than anything else. Me, I’ve know Dean’s faults from the beginning, and never needed to build him up more than he is. As for Conley, I know he’s supposed to be an expert because of his past experience, but some of his commentary proved dead wrong, like predicting it was a terrible mistake to put up five bats at the end of September. While I respect him for giving up the Deanblog name, after reading him saying there’s little difference between Dean and Bush, I’m probably not going to be visiting him much at danconley.com.

Fair points, but don’t misconstrue my link as an endorsement: after meeting Dean this week and spending time in Burlington last week, I’m more convinced than ever that Dean is the right guy and this campaign is what the party (and the country) needs.

I’ll work on my response over the weekend.

—Rick

While questioning Howard Dean’s campaigners upon his financing… a series of them began to defame the memory of my brother… who passed away at loma linda university medical center’s 7200 ward in October 1984. Todd Garth Anderson was a strong and vital kid. He was a fount of humor and human love.

this link will disgust you with the soullessness of howard dean’s campaigners as they attack the memory of a child victim of the godzilla of all brain tumors. http://www.livejournal.com/users/docmartian/24959.html

words like the words posted there on behalf of a political agenda should not go unavenged..
I personally think the best revenge is to spread the word. Dean’s staff are human filth. If you wish to write them however, please take into account that I’ve had networks of them swerve their cars at me… attempt to physically intimidate me… and act like nazis in a variety of shocking methods of huey long style politics. Spread the word remains my advice, you have greater networks of communication as activists, students and humanists, then they have as corrupt thugs.

Respectfully,
Kevin Anderson

howard dean! sucking israel’s bean! a sellout machine! building fences not dreams! from the same guys that shot yitzhak rabin! and his lovely zionist wife, dr. steinberg-dean! bought by sex, a second doctor’s income and ice cream. howard dean!

Kevin Anderson

I read this post on the Dean Blog. Not one person seem to comment on it. Why was that
I wonder. Your post describes your own self
quite well. Have a nice life

Rick, Dan is offering the URL, and I suggest taking him up on that offer.

A lot to cover — see what I can do and still make it to bed for some Zzzs

On Dean’s comment about wanting the support of guys that display the Confederate flag in the South.

1. I agree with Dan that the longhand version makes more sense and is better politics (and likely better morally).

2. I have a possible (and totally uninformed) take on what Dean might have meant, if the Des Moines Register picked it up in toto, and if it wasn’t a slip by Dean (neither of which I know) — here we go:

What Dean might have been talking about was his affinity for states rights. I don’t know if others have picked this up — but it is a common position for Dean and goes like this — national minimum (usually), followed by state flexibility. It’s true for Civil Unions (couple’s rights need to be there nationally, states figure out how to get there), gun control (Dan’s particulars aside), education (fund special ed which is largely unfunded mandate, let localities spend the money how they want on schools), malpractice (states should experiment and he favors Maine’s version, but right to sue needs to be there (see http://tinyurl.com/tb9t )), etc.

If I’m right about his states rights policies (and I think I am — whether or not Dean’s Confederate comment was illustrative of this), then I can say that Dean is not a traditional boon to liberal/progressive politics (and it’s pretty fair to say that he (even by his own admission) is not particularly liberal/progressive). The hope one has from this vantage is that, as with the Civil Union position, he will use national law to protect a basic floor beneath which things cannot fall. While this may not be as much as many (myself included) would wish for — it does, nonetheless, represent a decisive difference with Bush — and one worth voting for in 2004 (see the end of my comments).

Now, about Dean’s electability and desirability compared to Bush.

Things that Dan misses:

The Terrain

- The “economy” may pick up but, as Krugman points out often and well, how one defines the economy makes all the difference. If you define it as jobs (beyond those at McDonald’s, which may have picked up due to their recent salad surge) there’s always a lag with the market (I’m told) and I don’t see quality ones coming in large numbers for quite a while — so this will probably still be a major issue (especially among older workers who will likely not be hired because of discrimination regarding retirement/health). Older people vote.

- Bush is vulnerable on the terrorism/national security front not just because of unpredictable future issues, but because his past is coming to haunt him. Iraq has gotten plenty of coverage — you can read it elsewhere. But what about the Republican’s that are trying to get 911 info that Bush is stalling on (former NJ Gov Kean is the leader here)? What about the underfunding of post 911 security? The recent Quaker college student that put box cutters and chlorine on a few planes that traveled for months with them while he tried, unsuccessfully, to inform the authorities he had done it (they apparently don’t take those type of emails)?

- Profound (bipartisan, independent and non-voter) disgust with Bush based very rationally on his total lack of action (and at least with taxes, negative reaction) regarding the economy and his over-action regarding Iraq and the Patriot Act.

The General Election Money

- I have frequently argued that any Democrat in the race against Bush needs to mobilize activists early and in great numbers — because the only competition with the airwaves possible is with the feet on the ground and fingers on the keyboard (both are necessary) — these are your walking/talking advertisements. No one has done it but Dean, and it is fair to say that it is really pretty late for anyone to try (because even Dean’s current numbers of activists must expand greatly for the general election). That’s why there is no “six-week lull.” That’s why Dean’s money, as important as it is and will be, is not the story.

The Electorate

While these things are always trotted out, and there may be some grains of truth in them, I am reminded of what my Poli Sci professor W. Cary McWilliams once suggested to me about presidential data in another context — there isn’t enough of it for any statistical certainty about trends like those described. The universe of presidential elections since the end of WWII is 14 (if I’ve counted right) — what statistician (or professional gambler) would make bets based on that? Who would have bet even odds recently that a candidate with no name recognition from a small state trying to raise millions of dollars on the internet and gain hundreds of thousands of supporters the same way would do it? Nuff said.

All Predictions Aside

1. We’re talking dreamworld here — ok, yes, you’ve got me, it’s true, any Democratic contender (but especially, let’s say, Kucinich and Sharpton) will get along smashingly with Tom Delay, who will consult with them on creating the new, iron-clad, Democratic majority (but only after Tom becomes a Democrat himself and marries Newt G., another recent convert, in Canada). Dream on…

2. It is fair to say that Dean’s foreign policy is not as well developed (or at least my understanding of it is not), but we do have a few things to go on. First, he does not believe in pre-emptive strikes. Second, he does believe that our allies should be engaged with the UN in the process of any conflict. Third, he believes that war is among the last alternatives. That’s three critical (and in my opinion correct) views that Bush does not share. And the bonus criticism here is the perhaps Freudian slip by Dan: “it would not surprise me one bit to see more wars in a Dean administration than we’d get in a second Bush term.” OK, isn’t the fair comparison with what we know — the first Bush term, just how many are you predicting in the hypothetical second Bush term and since you’re comparing a hypothetical Bush four years with Dean’s expected eight years is this a fair comparison?

3. Dean is not perfect — he’s better. I believe he can get the job done — he’s willing to surround himself with people that can do it. This isn’t a cop out — it is Dean’s organization right now — and not everyone can do it (see W. Clark). What Dean knew about the internet could probably have fit a thimble before he started this presidential campaign. And he likely doesn’t know tons about it now. He knows what it can do (in broad terms), he knows who to ask what it can do (again in broad terms) and he knows who he can get to do what he needs. That’s a lot of what the modern presidency is about — not even Clinton knew it all. On language, say what you will about Dean, he’s no George Bush. The only reason why Bush doesn’t make more gaffes is because people no longer listen to him carefully — or believe him (when they’re listening to him at all).

The Race

Here (I guess) is the crux of Dan’s argument. He wishes it was a race about Liberalism. He’s right it isn’t. He’s wrong about the stakes (which don’t get much play here) and about the outcome. The only thing serious about Bush is his effect on this country — which is highly destructive to America and to Liberalism. It would be a mistake to minimize any alternative to a Bush second term (the list is long, but take the Supreme Court and federal judiciary in general as one enduring effect). One article I read on the “anyone but Bush” argument called it the “baloney sandwich argument” — as in substitute any Democrat in the race for a baloney sandwich and say “I would vote for a baloney sandwich” instead of Bush.

Had a real liberal/progressive like Kucinich struck fire in this race Dan and I would be voting for him (I’m guessing Dan). He didn’t, Dean did. As Dean has said (to paraphrase) you may not agree with everything he says, but he’ll let you know where he stands and he thinks that on balance you’ll agree with him. On balance, given what the field looks like, I do. Since Dean will win the primary, it is a mistake to think he shouldn’t win the general election (either in policy or electability). It would be Dan’s tragic mistake to think it didn’t matter — it is worse that Dan thinks that a Dean loss would be better.

ask yourself… who is the real person… and who are the trolls. i’d say they are the ones who AREN’T taking even a second to apologize for the atrocious comments about my dearly departed brother. nobody has. nobody will. dean is about the money he can get (and has gotten) from israel. his mad power grab is identical to the methods by which hitler came to power. only instead of undereducated farm boys and organized crime types…. he uses gays and rednecks… i was a diehard dem until dean sold out palestine and talked shit about my brother who died of a massive brain tumor. Now? GOP for life.

why?
because not even the dems have expressed regret for dean’s staffers/campaigners poor taste and judgement.

here’s an example of the taste, love and judgement of the dean campaign… remember… they’re talking about a 9 year old who died after a long battle with cancer.