Take heart Dean supporters

[CTLawGuy]

Remember, Ronald Reagan ran in 1976 and lost in the primary due to being branded "unelectable". Look what happened 4 years later.

As much as I dislike Reagan, I think he changed the Republican Party for the better (for them, not for us). He taught them that they could stand for principles and still win. Granted that we don't agree with what they stood for. He made the Republican party a majority party eventually. They are a majority party not because they try to represent the middle, but because they keep their base excited while attempting to bring the middle to them. (It helps that the Dems do not also do this)

As much as I hate Bush, he ran a great campaign. He took his radical repubican positions and tried to make the middle like them. Yes, on many things he lied, or did 180s on, but on most things he was just trying to sell the Republicans to the middle.

If Howard Dean is gone today, he may be back in 4 years. Maybe he will really make Reaganic change in this party.

[laconicsax]

1. So is Dean the next Ronald Reagan?

nt.

[jansu]

2. That was kind!

[Maddy McCall]

3. You are SOOO wrong about Reagan!!!

Thank Reagan for the regression in women's status. He is the asshole who made folks like Rush and Schlafly possible. He is the asshole who stole the populist rhetoric from us. He is the asshole responsible for Iran Contra, for telling people one thing while doing another.

He is the godfather of Bush II--if you smile right and use clever, populist rhetoric, you can get away with murder.

The principles Reagan "taught" the Republican party they could stand for were what hurts us so today.

And let's not forget that most historians hate him; the most authoritive book on the REagan administraiton is "Sleepwalking through History." The author credits Reagan with putting the American public to sleep, with causing Americans to become more apathetic about their government's functions.

Reagan told women to go back to the kitchen, and to hand the control of their fertility over to men in government. Reagan campaigned on slogans, not substance, and if he had not been so successful with dumbing down the American public, there would be no george w bush today.

You need to either read up on history or rethink your assertion.

If you are saying that Dean is Reagan's equivalent in empty rhetoric, then I might agree, however.

8. did you really read what he wrote?

You say

"The principles Reagan "taught" the Republican party they could stand for were what hurts us so today

but darboy said

As much as I dislike Reagan, I think he changed the Republican Party for the better (for them, not for us)."

I don't think darboy Likes the principles of the Republican party, your comment "You need to either read up on history or rethink your assertion." seems to me to be uncalled for.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Reagan as the template for our party is laughable

Yes I did read it. Did you read this part of my post?

And let's not forget that most historians hate him; the most authoritive book on the REagan administraiton is "Sleepwalking through History." The author credits Reagan with putting the American public to sleep, with causing Americans to become more apathetic about their government's functions.

Sorry, I'll pass if that's what is advocated for the Dem party.

15. I was probably being too nit-picky

Sorry.
I agree with you about Reagan being badbadbad.

I just thought you were missing the spirit of what Darboy is trying to say.

I can't resist saying that from my perpsective, remembering 1980, Reagan didn't put the American public to sleep. They were already asleep or Reagan would never have gotten elected. A lot of people either went for a snooze or became fragmented regarding politics after the Vietnam War.

[Maddy McCall]

20. Well, maybe you should take it up with the brilliant historian

Haynes Johnson who wrote the book, which is now acclaimed by most historians as the best researched and written book on Reagan.

21. I could

but I don't need a historian to tell me or interpret for me what I saw with my own eyes at the time as an adult. The American people were already asleep or they wouldn't have elected Reagan in the first place.

[Maddy McCall]

25. I was there too.

Was an adult then too. I concur with Johnson, both in memory and as a professional historian.

27. I can't argue with that

see, it comes down to opinion eventually.

But seriously, don't you think the American public was asleep before Reagan got elected?
I'll give you the point that they went More to sleep as a result of his election, but even that I'm not so sure about seeing as how a lot of people whose politics I don't like seem to have woken up then. That's part of the problem right?

[angryinoville]

22. I don't think...

Darboy was approving what Reagan stood for, I think he was making a comparison about the way he went about it to generate excitement and involvement from the base of his party much like Dean has done.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Reagan just made people "feel good"

meanwhile he screwed them in myriad ways.

Sorry, don't want that for my party. I'll take substance over facade any day.

28. substance over facade, YES

whether they are right or wrong that is why some are suspicious of Kerry and some are suspicious of Dean.
Both sides question the sincerity of the other side's candidate.
Last night Dean put it in terms of conviction and convenience. You know what he thinks.

Comes down to a judgment call.

[CTLawGuy]

29. you like substance??

then why are you voting for Kerry, he has no substance. How do you where he stands on anything? Or is voting with the Bush Admin on almost every important issue considered substance?

[mandyky]

4. My heart remains with Howard Dean

Hopefully he is going to let us know today how he plans to lead our movement that he started. Thank God he transplanted a spine into the pink tutus! For that alone he deserves credit, and for so much more.

[EXE619K]

10. There was no transplant!

The pink tu-tus are saying that to co-opt the Dean message.

They'll always go back to their old ways of special interest money and rolling over for GOP agendas.

[mandyky]

18. We Deanocrats have to hold

their feet to the fire.

[wryter2000]

23. You're right, Mandy -- from a Dean supporter

I'm hoping he keeps the organization together to fight the DeLay's et al. He'd already done some of that. I gave to a guy in Iowa who was defending himself against Rove. Dean created a tremendous force for change. I hope it doesn't die. He could even keep the name -- Dean for America -- because that's what it would be.

I hope he gives a kick ass speech today to remind everyone that he's da man.

[KoKo]

5. This is second post here this morning trying to equate Reagan with Dean!

What is this? An effort now to rewrite Reagan as a Democrat? Please! To speak Dean's name in the same post as Ronald Reagan is blasphemy! And to do it on a Democratic Undergound site. :nuke:

[mandyky]

6. I don't think it is meant as a slam against Dean

Dean has changed the Dem Party, and I am not sure what Reagan did for the Pubs (I really disliked reagan almost as much as idiot cowboy).

[wryter2000]

24. Please read what darboy said

I'm a Deanie, and he's the opposite of Reagan. What darboy said was the Reagan transformed the Republican party into a winning machine by energizing "the base" while moving the rest of the country in his direction. If Dean or any democrat could do that, it would be a Very Good Thing. Our politics would be 180 degrees different, though.

[Ficus]

7. I see your point

I understand you're not saying that Reagan = Dean, or vice versa, but saying that he was good at energizing their base. You're 100% right.


But Reagan sucks. Alot.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Oh calm down people!

I've actually seen Dean as a Goldwater-type figure for a long time...kind of the same difference as this Reagan comparison. I think we're smart enough to know that this comparison is along the dimension of how to run a campaign or a movement and not along the dimension of politics, aren't we?

[ibegurpard]

11. You'd think so , wouldn't you?

But judging from some of the responses, apparently not. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

13. Kind of the same "glance-and-throw-a-fit" culture...

...that led to Dean being criticized for saying we're not safer now that Saddam is gone, or for "yeeeeaaaaaaaah!".

[Maddy McCall]

17. No, try "well-read" and throw a fit

I find it ironic that you guys criticize Edwards and Kerry, and in the past Clark, for being empty suits, but you would propone the epitome of the Republican empty suit as a template for our party?

I completely understand the argument, but find it laughable. Not a knee-jerk reaction, but one based on knowledge about the REagan Revolution's manipulation of people with image, not substance.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Hahahaha!

See what I mean?

[mandyky]

14. One would hope

but we are seeing people doing less than smart things lately, haven't we?

[MGKrebs]

16. I urge readers to look into Instant runoff voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/

Advantages:
-People can vote for their true choice without throwing it away to the other party.
-Narrow issue candidates can make a stronger impact.
-Eliminates the MAJOR expense of having seperate runoff elections.

Disadvantages:
-I don't know. Perhaps the major party leading candidates wouldn't like it, because it strengthens the chances of minor or third party candidates.

This is a good time to pursue this issue, since the country is in the process of changing the voting equipment anyway.

[CTLawGuy]

30. ok, Ill explain my point again in simpler terms

Reagan = not moderate
Reagan = not electable (according to the pugs in power)
Reagan = winner
Repugs liked reagan... because reagan = not moderate
middle liked reagan... because reagan told them conservative = good
reagan = elected
Republicans = majority party

If Dean can do that on the democratic side then...

democrats = majority party