Howard Dean Supporters
Supporters Speak for Dean
Monday, August 25, 2003
Don't worry about being thought of as a spammer. what you did I honestly don't think would be considered spam. The company that did spam while under Dean was told not to, but those companies usually blast out literally thousands if not millions of emails each day. I don't think you did that ;) Plus most Dean bloggers want to talk about Dean.
Derek, I politely disagree that votes for Dean is four more years of Bush.
Wow, Charles, that is quite an article on Clark. Thank you for posting it
I know my guy was all for Clark up until July. He's now for Dean. I trust and respect his opinions since he does a lot of research and has a fairly accurate view of the world. Last night someone called Counterpunch an tabloid for anarchists with slightly better qualifications than the typical tabloid. Yeeooww, but I have to admit I do kind of agree. Especially since some of their Dean articles have been skewed. It'll definitely be interesting to see what his decision is and how it plays out.
Welcome back Jennifer. I hope you're doing well and that Becky is back on her feet, well on the road of health. Good luck with your new blog
Comment by Lysa
what are you talking about? A baseball game that Kerry supporters won against Dean supporters by one point? I'm not getting what you are trying to tell us here.
Although I did read through that entire thread ( I wish they would have set it up differently, it's frustrating that you have to scroll up instead of page down to read it in proper sequence ) and noted that someone did mention a very real and important factor. Dean's base is larger not just because of Dean's power to move people in the democratic camp, but people from all sectors.
At meet ups we've had democrats, republicans, greens, and independents.
While I applaud your enthusiasm, I have to say that when you tell Dean supporters to do their homework, its a tad insulting. We Do and that is why many of us have chosen Dean over Kerry.
Comment by Lysa
I'm enthusiastic about Governor Howard Dean. I like the fact that he doesn't have to do a poll to find out what he thinks. I like the fact that he alone among the Democratic leadership did not roll over a play dead regarding taking us into Iraq. I like that fact that he is sharing the power already, not even dictating the running of his own political campaign but saying to Americans "You have the power. Use it." I like the fact that he is speaking to those Americans who have opted out of politics and encouraging them to re-engage and participate. I like the fact that he is strong enough to match the Republicans without accepting huge donations from any one. It will not be a few wealthy contributors to whom he feels allegiance when he is elected. He speaks to me very clearly in his values and forthrightness, in his view of what America ought to represent in the world, and how badly the current administration has betrayed our trust. I believe that if he gets into office and finds that his promises are not possible because of unforseen circumstances, he'll be up front about what's changing and why he is delaying some portion of his campaign promises.
Imagine if you will the person you trust most in the world, the person you would chose to cover your back in a fight, the person to whom you would entrust your children if you could not be there, and never give a thought to their welfare while the children were in this person's keeping. If you are lucky that person is your father or mother, your spouse, a brother or sister. I think you ought to feel that way about your President. Everything I know about Howard Dean so far makes me feel that way about him.
Comment by Gail Loyd
We can have tax cuts and national health insurance? Is that an empty promise or a tough choice? Dean says we will rescind the Bush tax cuts and pay for health insurance (Tough choice but straight up). Kerry says we can have both (sounds good to the voters but the math doesn't add up).
Kerry showed his "vision" when he voted FOR Bush's war resolution, and now he tries to sell himself as a candidate against Bush's war even though he signed on before the war started, because he knew he would be running for President.
I'm not a sucker...actions speak louder than words. I'll take the guy who spoke out against the war before it started when speaking out wasn't popular, not the guy who jumps on the bandwagon when he sees that being anti-war can pick up as many votes as it loses.
Kerry over Bush?---> you bet!
Kerry over Dean?---> no.
Comment by Keith Brekhus
hey keith: i love the idea of kerry over bush--yes, and kerry over dean--no. my feeling is that kerry should have been consistent and said no to the war in iraq.
Comment by Sindhu Kumar
I think one of the bloggers said it best ( Pat in CA? ) when s/he said s/he remembered Kennedy rallies days and weeks before the election with 10,000 people showing up. Here we are fourteen months away from the election and 15,000 people just showed up to a rally in Seattle for Dean.
Milwaukee, WI 800 ( during a Packer game no less! ), Boise, ID 450 ( Unscheduled and not announced no less! ), .....5,000 in Portland, 4,500 in Virginia, all for Dean and he isn't finished yet.
Chicago, San Antonio, Spokane, and New York are gearing up for the Doctor to show.
Keith off hand do you remember what Seattle sign ups were before the rally? I think they were around two or three thousand. Fifteen thousand!!!! WhoooooT, Go Dean!
Comment by Lysa
Hi Wayne! Incredible isn't it. I'm just Floored. Zounds! What's the term? Snoopy dance? If so that's what I've been doing all day and it just keeps getting better. If other candidates don't start dropping out soon, I'll be shocked. Dean is Leading and blowing them away each day!
And how 'bout them remarks on Wesley Clark! That was Pure Class Dean showed.
Comment by Lysa
Lysa, What an incredible day for us Deaniacs. The blog was going so fast it was unreal. Probably some kind of net record. Money is pouring in. 325,000 supporters. Over 90,000 for Meetup. Wow are we on a roll. Bush is dead meat. By tomorrow the numbers will be staggering. Thank all you DEANIACS.
Comment by Charles in Montana
I agree, Charles, Total blogathon over there! I couldn't hit refresh fast enough the comments kept pouring in. And How neat that Deaniacs stayed after to clean up. Stuff like that really makes me proud of fellow Deaniacs! I don't know if I'll be able to sleep with numbers still pouring in.
Bush won't know what hit him since he's so damn complacent. I hope for everyone's sake he remains as arrogant as he has been. Dean will Steam roll over him and then some. Clark is going to make it really interesting since the both he and Dean are alike on a lot of issues. I noticed Clark's numbers leap frogged over Kerry's meet up.
Jazzed, just Jazzed!
Comment by Lysa
I don't want to disbelieve you, but how about some facts about Kerry supporters being there? A few days ago you said Kerry never took one red cent of PAC money ( not that I think anything is too terribly wrong with that ) but that wasn't true, he did and that report was from June 30th of this year.
Again, for the record, I think it's great you support Kerry.
So far I haven't seen a single comment made about any Kerry supporters there. Larouche supporters, yes, but no Kerry supporters
Blog entry by Karl Frich.
" Never before in the six years I've been involved in politics have I ever seen anything like this. Everywhere I look were more people waving Dean signs and wearing Dean shirts. From the main stage to press riser was a shoulder-to-shoulder sea of Dean signs as far as the eye could see. At least 4,000 people just in that front area! Moving to the press riser, I found an even larger sea of Dean signs behind the press risers, flowing all the way down the street for nearly a block. At least twice as many people as the group in front of the press risers! Media reports and police official estimates put the crowd between 12,000 to 15,000 people. All I can say is that Washington is certainly Dean Country."
Comment by Lysa
For what its worth, George McGovern was a Veteran and it didn't help him against Nixon. People aren't going to vote for a candidate's military resume, they are going to vote for the candidate who gives them a reason to vote for him (or her).
Anyone who thinks Kerry will be impervious to Karl Rove's dirty tricks simply because he is a Veteran, hasn't seen what the GOP did to Max Cleland in 2002. The candidate who will beat Bush will be the candidate who fights like a junkyard dog and shows no fear of the Republicans, not the candidate who plays nice and points to his past record of service.
This campaign is about the future not the past, and the Democrats had damn sure better bring everything they got and come out swinging. The future of America is at stake and this could be one of the ugliest campaigns in history--so be it. Howard Dean is the one candidate who seems ready.
Comment by Keith Brekhus
Here are the meet up totals for the Democratic candidates with the most "grassroots support". Lieberman and Gephardt may be party favorites with the establishment, but they are generating little support from the rank and file as eveidenced by the fact that their meetup numbers are behind Kucinich's.
Kerry and Kucinich are doing alright, and Clark is doing very well for an "unannounced" candidate, but at this point nobody holds a candle to Dean's campaign which has 10 times the grassroots support of his nearest Democratic challanger.
1. Dean: 90,083
2. Clark: 9,254
3. Kerry: 9,180
4. Kucinich: 9,111
Comment by Keith Brekhus
How come we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq yet then?
How were they a threat to us with no air force and no weapons delivery systems capable of launching weapons more than a couple miles?
Quiz: Of the 19 9/11 hijackers how many were from Iraq?
Quiz: What is PNAC?
If you can answer these two questions, you'll better understand why some of us are more skeptical of the current administration's agenda.
Wayne in Missouri
The 19 hijackers:
15 were Saudis
3 were Egyptians
1 was from United Arab Emirates
ZERO were from Iraq.
All 19 hijackers were from countries that are supposed to be Arab allies of the United States. Ironically, 18 of the 19 hijackers came from the two Arab nations that receive the most military aid from the United States.
A primer on what PNAC is:
The Neo-Conservative Imperial Agenda: A Perverse Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
While the United States has been an empire and the lone global superpower for several years now, President Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq still marks a radical departure in the practice of American foreign policy. This shift in policy has gone largely unnoticed by an American public that has been fed a number of noble sounding rationales for the war on Iraq, including preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, defending America from terrorists and bringing democracy to the people of Iraq. In reality, however, these rationales are simply imperial alibis for a more Machiavellian agenda that was hatched by neo-conservatives a decade ago and is now being put into practice.
In the 1990s, neo-conservative William Kristol joined with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others to set up a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This group’s prescription included dramatic increases in military spending, putting weapons into space and establishing a global military presence that could enforce American economic, military and political hegemony in geo-politically strategic regions like the Middle East and Central and East Asia. This cabal of neo-cons met prior to the 2000 election to reiterate their commitment to this ambitious agenda should their man, George W. Bush, become president. For his part, after “winning” the election, the new president appointed many of these neo-conservatives, including Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle, to key posts in his administration.
PNAC Agenda for the Middle East
Aside from putting weapons in outer space, the most disturbing and ambitious element of the PNAC foreign policy blueprint was the plan to “democratize” the Middle East through military conquest. The project’s dream scenario called for running the table in the Middle East by first imposing regime change on Iraq and then proceeding to take out the regimes in Iran, Syria and eventually moving on into Central and East Asia, culminating with regime change in China. This strategy is explicitly recommended in the PNAC documents (www.newamericancentury.org), and the neo-conservative architects of the plan brazenly call for being able to wage war in multiple theaters simultaneously.
The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, provided a golden opportunity for the Bush administration to launch the first stages of the PNAC plan, though Iraq was delayed to install a new regime in Afghanistan first because the Taliban was arguably implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks, while Iraq was not. Nevertheless, the administration began drawing up plans for invading Iraq, and it mobilized its propaganda teams to re-demonize Saddam Hussein, attempting to link Iraq to the anthrax scare and to al Qaeda.
Note that even as the war on Iraq unfolded, Rumsfeld and Bush set the stage for a possible next war by initiating a bellicose war of words with Iran and Syria. The groundwork for invading the next regional enemy is underway, and a year or two from now, don’t be surprised to see the administration assert that Syria or Iran has weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism and that to protect America we must militarily destroy the regimes in those nations. The pattern should become obvious after a couple more examples, but it remains to be seen whether the corporate media or the American public will ever take notice of the continuously recycling scenario.
Unfortunately, the far-reaching PNAC agenda has not been give much attention in the mainstream press. The Bush administration has sold the Iraq war to the public with a humbler sounding agenda, but the hawks in the administration are interested in much more than simply disarming Saddam Hussein. Glimpses of the PNAC agenda surface in the foreign press or in progressive newsweeklies, but for the most part, at least until recently, the TV news has accepted the administration’s rationales for war at face value, with no inquiry into the long-term plan for the Middle East.
In fairness to the hawks, their plan ostensibly calls for reshaping the Middle East with democracies in place throughout the region. If the plan actually succeeded at bringing about full-fledged democracies throughout the Middle East, it might merit careful consideration, especially if it could be shown that few innocents would be killed, maimed or displaced in the process. However, the plan is based on so many flawed assumptions that only the most naïve could judge the best-case scenario as even remotely plausible. Furthermore, it appears that many of the policy architects themselves recognize that the plan is a recipe for regional chaos and interminable bloodshed on a truly grotesque scale. However, the potential for disaster, rather than discouraging the neo-cons, actually emboldens them to support the plan, because by creating chaos they actually create the conditions that might make it appear necessary to occupy the region militarily.
Where Are They Taking Us?
An article by Joshua Marshall in the April issue of Washington Monthly titled “Practice to Deceive: Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario—it’s their plan,” explicates the perverse logic that underpins the Bush administration’s twisted plans. With the intention of toppling one regime after another in the Middle East region, the administration may actually tacitly welcome an increase in terrorism during and after the Iraq war because this will be used to justify further U.S. involvement in the region and provide the neo-conservative hawks with cause belli to attack Syria, Iran and other regimes in the region. In a sort of inexorable pattern of macabre inertia, each new crisis will draw more U.S. forces into the region, leading to further problems by inspiring counterattacks that require still more troops to be committed in a Sisyphian cycle of ongoing violence. Within a decade, we could be facing the bizarre prospect of trying to maintain a permanent occupation force in multiple Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries and a perpetual war on terror that creates more enemies, further alienates our allies, drains our economy and leads to a regional bloodbath too catastrophic to contemplate.
Quite simply, the hawks in the White House are Pax Americana fundamentalists whose zeal for empire far exceeds their capacity for either reason or compassion. Perle, Wolfowitz and company are thoroughly dangerous men singularly bent on a policy that will enforce regional hegemony in the Middle East through force, and it appears that the neo-conservative mindset has poisoned the thought processes of the entire White House and supplanted foreign policy realism and regional containment as the operating military paradigm.
Many progressives and moderates initially embraced the war, however reluctantly, either to demonstrate their support for the troops or because they feared for our security or perhaps because they clung hopefully to the notion that war would truly liberate the people of Iraq. However, these optimists failed to realize that the same neo-conservatives who assured us that they would liberate Iraq also believed that it would be simple to get the world to approve our invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, a significant number of prominent neo-conservatives in the administration boldly predicted that the Iraqi people would greet us with open arms and that the Iraqi military would capitulate and surrender in the first couple days of conflict. And of course they also were certain Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD.
Finally, many of our fellow citizens are waking up and refusing to believe the rosy scenarios painted for us and the outright lies fed to us. We must not continue to march down a ruinous path of perpetual war and face the inevitable anti-American backlash that war will create. We need the courage to stand up to a reckless administration in Washington and demand an end to ceaseless interventions.
Instead of calling for a new American century of military conquest and control, we must begin a project for a new century that is a truly international century based on cooperation rather than conflict. We should begin with the simple and not terribly radical step of rejecting the neo-conservative doctrine of pre-emptive warfare as the new centerpiece of our foreign policy.
The best time to resist is not years from now when war and occupation have already taken a tremendous human toll both home and abroad. The time to stand up and resist the neo-conservative military agenda is today—before the body count rises any higher. The risks that we now face as a nation will only multiply exponentially if we fail to curtail the ambitions of our leaders at this early stage. We must apply the brakes with uncompromising vigor because the White House has both feet on the accelerator and is steering us toward decades of disaster. Rarely, if ever, have the costs of inaction been greater. We can’t afford to appease the White House today, or we will face crisis after crisis for years to come. We must continue to resist this war and occupation and work to prevent the realization of the neo-conservative blueprint for global domination.
Comment by Keith Brekhus
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003