Dean Rant - Muske 1972 Redux?

Hey, not to pile on here, but the Howard Dean live-on-TV rant after his loss tonite in Iowa was pretty scary, IMHO. One commentator said he looked and sounded "like a prairie dog on speed." That's putting it mildly. x(

Flashback to 1972 when, in the snows of New Hampshire the then Democratic front runner, Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine publicly weeped after his wife had been savagely attacked by the then (truly deranged) Editor of the Manchester Guardian newspaper.

The similarities in reactions are verrrry interesting. The word "unglued" comes to mind. :*

Muskie

Ed Muskie wept when discussing verbal assaults on his wife. May not have been tough or politically astute behavior, but it was certainly not UNGLUED. I would call it honest and sensitive. (Translation: I liked Muskie in 72!)

RE: Muskie

Please double G ... people aren't allowed to defend, show affection or otherwise aknowlege their lovers/wives/family or dogs unless they want to reveal to everyone that their feelings are fake.. By standing up for his wife and being offended for her (even though I didn't see it) I'm sure he only revealed that any feelings he had for her were fake..

Gio in Denver

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

RE: Muskie

You may not like "unglued", but the point is, how does the candidate stand up to pressure? While Muske behaved like a total gentleman, he failed the "political pressure" test then, and I think Howard Dean may have just outdone him tonight. We'll see. :o

I like that Edit function

Sorry, ncm.

You didn't realize that I had already corrected my misquote, which is what I get for typing too quickly. Mea culpa!

>Hey, not to pile on here, but the Howard Dean live-on-TV rant

>after his loss tonite in Iowa was pretty scary, IMHO. One

>commentator said he looked and sounded "like a prairie dog on

>speed." That's putting it mildly. x(

I'm sure those TV pundits were stunned and bewildered by the crowd's enthusiasm, and Dean was everything that inspired us to support him in the first place -- fiery, passionate, optimistic, rallying his supporters to continue what he knows is going to be a long and grueling fight for the nomination and the future of the Democratic party. Those 3,500 supporters were already revved up when he got there, and he went with it.

I thought it was really sad (but not surprising at all) when the media trashed the speech and said that he'd gone nuts, lost it, was enraged. Dean's so much the ANTI-politician -- impulsive, candid, passionate, unscripted -- and the media and establishment Democrats just don't get it. But that's exactly what is drawing thousands to him: that sense that he's not the slick, polished statesman who panders to polls and special interests.

RE: Dean Rant

The speech is going to hurt Dean. It will make great fodder for Republican commercials if Dean is nominated. He has a very short time to learn a little more about presidential style or sink further.

RE: Dean Rant

Yep, I fear Dean will never overcome that image and the remaining scaredydummycrats are just too terrified of dummypuppet-boyemperor while he continues to terrify our (non)voters;(

RE: Dean Rant

Two family members who never comment much on politics let me know that the Dean rant finished him as far as they are concerned. This is not playing well in the homeland!

>I'm sure those TV pundits were stunned and bewildered by the

>crowd's enthusiasm, and Dean was everything that inspired us

>to support him in the first place -- fiery, passionate,

>optimistic, rallying his supporters to continue what he knows

>is going to be a long and grueling fight for the nomination

>and the future of the Democratic party. Those 3,500

>supporters were already revved up when he got there, and he

>went with it.

The path to the Presidency is a tightrope. On one hand, a candidate has to be fiery, passionate and so forth to rally volunteers to get out in the Iowa and New Hampshire winters and work on his behalf. At the same time, the candidate has to look "Presidential" (whatever that means) to prospective voters in the rest of the nation. I worry that Howard Dean is to impulsive and doesn't fit the mold enough.

Granted, the campaign begins all over after the conventions in the summer. Meanwhile, impressions formed do stick around a while.

>I thought it was really sad (but not surprising at all) when

>the media trashed the speech and said that he'd gone nuts,

>lost it, was enraged. Dean's so much the ANTI-politician --

>impulsive, candid, passionate, unscripted -- and the media and

>establishment Democrats just don't get it. But that's exactly

>what is drawing thousands to him: that sense that he's not the

>slick, polished statesman who panders to polls and special

>interests.

He's going to have to loose some of that impulsive streak to win. The average guy in the streak holds the US President up as someone sort of lofty and "better" somehow. I think Howard Dean ought to read all of Truman's biographies. You can be unscripted, but you have to learn to keep your guard up. You don't go around giving your opponent ammunition.

This is definitely going to be an interesting political year. The sense out here in the West is that an awful lot of Republicans want Bush gone. But, I think he's going to be hard to beat.

I'd really hate to see Bush's campaign ads featuring that "YeeeeHaaa" yell of Dean's the other night. I gotta believe that moment won't play well with an awful lot of people.

--EBG

In the debates, the general consensus of the pundits was that Dean appeared the most presidential.

Has there been any word on any efforts by the Dean campaign to get him on either Dave Letterman or Jay Leno to have some fun with this? A little self-effacing humor on late night television could go a long way to turn this negative to a positive. I also seem to remember reading that a significant number of voters get information about politics from the late night shows.

Conan, Gov. Dean?

Jeff

>...I thought it was really sad (but not surprising at all) when the media trashed the speech and said that he'd gone nuts, lost it, was enraged.

Rick, I don't think it's sad -- I personally find it alarming that the news media has taken it upon themselves to play "spin doctor" and manipulate the opinions of voters.

I'm certainly capable of making up my own mind about the candidates. I resent it when the news media goes beyond merely reporting the news.

I'm not sure the parallel between Muske and Dean is correct. It really reminds me more of the George Romney slip when he was running for President. Romney made an innocent comment about being "brainwashed" concerning the Viet Nam war. Again, the news media trashed and misrepresented his views and it ruined his political career.

Candidates aren't perfect. They don't always said things or act the way we feel they should. But the news media involvement, like a pack of rabid dogs, is totally inappropriate. x(

BTW, I'm one of those fence sitters still trying to make up my mind about the candidates. So, I'm not a Dean supporter or hater. I just feel the media attack is unwarranted.

>Rick, I don't think it's sad -- I personally find it

>alarming that the news media has taken it upon

>themselves to play "spin doctor" and manipulate the opinions

>of voters.

That's exactly what they're doing. Here's a great blog (PressThink) that discusses this in depth, especially in relation to what just happened in Iowa:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/21/iowa_campbell.html

"You can come up with reasons for IOWA now that it's over, but 'electability"' and 'angry' were pushed heavily by the media with little or no factual basis to support them.

"Why is Edwards more 'electable'? The media has repeated Edwards won because of questions on Dean's "electability" several times, yet you never get any reason for it. Its just televised push-polling (polls that ask if you'd vote for candidate A if you knew *blank*- telephone polls that insinuate that candidate A has done something horrible).

"The media pushed the need for an Anti-Dean as if it was an emergency. Somehow the democratic party was being driven off of a cliff. 'Oh no who's going to emerge as the Anti-Dean before it's too late?'"

Muske, Romney, it's all the same phenomenon. They both, and Dean on Monday night, self-destructed on national TV.

I'm NO fan of "the media" these days, but in this case, I think it's totally ludicrous to "blame" the media for how Dean's rant is "playing" across the country. Howard Dean did it to himself. All the media is doing (mostly) is re-playing his rant. And, the country is reacting accordingly.

The Primaries are a major test for all the candidates. Some pass, some fail. Methinks it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for Dean to recover from his gaffe.

Now, is that fair? Rick would probably argue that it's not. Well, life's not fair. You only get so many chances, and sometimes no second chances. That's especially true in Presidential Primaries. They tend to winnow out those who aren't yet ready for prime time.

"New", "unscripted", "talks from the heart", "speaks his mind" - find those terms applied to any presidential candidate in recent memory, and check out how many of them ever got elected. Just a few - John McCain in 2000, George McGovern in 1972, Gene McCarthy in 1968. Hmmm...they all have a "Mc" in their name - did Dean's forebearers change the name from McDean? :+

>All the media is doing (mostly) is re-playing

>his rant.

What aspect of his speech was a rant ("to speak in an angry or violent manner")?

You can't split hairs, Rick. The "rant" was "the rant." Most folks seem to get it. I "got it" the minute I saw it.

Some (admittedly gratuitous) political advice: myopia abounds among ardent supporters. Step back and see the forest for the trees.

BELVIEVE ME: I've been where you are. I reiterate my VERY SINCERE applause for your efforts.

The "bottom line" (OK, bad choice of words on an escort site): in your own words, the objective is to send W back to Crawford.

Don't let your "perfect" candidate be the enemy of the good. :7

That said, keep the faith. It's good for the soul. :-)

< The sense out here in the West is that an awful lot of Republicans want Bush gone. >

Seriously? Can you elaborate PLEASE? :*

>The "bottom line" (OK, bad choice of words on an escort site):

>in your own words, the objective is to send W back to

>Crawford.

Dean is the only candidate who can do that. By forgoing matching federal funds, he will be the only one with enough money to combat the $200 million Bush war chest. And Dean is the only clear alternative. Kerry & Edwards, although they've now adopted Dean's positions, did vote for the tax cuts, for No Child Left Behind, and for the war.

Having watched the Iowa Roadshow (fairly dispassionately), my feeling is that we all had better get used to the idea of four more years of Bush.

Obviously the democrats are not sure how to tackle him, without seeming "unamerican". Kerry couldn't possibly go anywhere in a national election at this point (some really, really, big Shit would have to hit the fan that would make Anybody seem better than Bush). And well, the qualities that make Dean "fiery" and "passionate" to his supporters are the very same that make him seem

weird and scary to more middle-of-the-road folk.

If things don't go well for Dean over the next month or so in the Democratic arena I would hope he'd consider running on an independent ticket. Not that he'd win, but it would be a grand wake-up call to the democratic party.

Trix

>

>"But the true test of leadership is having the courage to

>stand up for what you believe when it counts - even when it's

>not popular. That's the test by which I've measured my public

>life. And it's the test by which I will measure my

>Presidency."

>

Well Rick, I hate to argue with a man I respect and admire so much (you, not Dean). But let me make a few brief points:

1. It's not the press that's destroyed Dean's candidacy--it's Dean himself. The unscripted outbursts that you lilke so much, turned others off. When he wants to treat Israel and PLO as equivalent, when he believes Saddam's capture makes no difference, when he finds Jesus just in time to head South, when he is impolite to voters who question him--all these things and more has led to a fall which will be faster than any in political history. Iowa, and the rest of America, decided he's just not ready for prime time. There's a reason ALL presidents carefully phrase every public word and action: lives and fortunees can be lost when recklessness is confused with refreshing candor.

2. Just for accuracy--I believe that Kerry also has decided not to accept matching funds. George Soros can make up the difference for the rest!

< If things don't go well for Dean over the next month or so in the Democratic arena I would hope he'd consider running on an independent ticket. Not that he'd win, but it would be a grand wake-up call to the democratic party. >

JESUS CHRIST!!! I don't fucking get it. x( Ralph Nader gave us 4 years of Bush 2. You want 4 more years for Bush to totally remake the Supreme Court, thanks to a Dean independent candidacy? x( x( x(

Sorry, Trix, but I don't buy your logic (or lack thereof).

Frankly, I wonder who needs that "grand wake-up call."

Rick, do your homework. Kerry is a millionaire in his own right, and his wife is the widow of (former Republican Senator from PA) John Heinz, the heir to the ketchup (catsup??) fortune. Yes, there may be campaign finance "hurdles" for Kerry to use his/his wife's fortune to fund his campaign, but don't think it can't happen.

Media war on democrat candidates, 2000 redux?

>1. It's not the press that's destroyed Dean's candidacy--it's

>Dean himself.

I totally disagree. First they give a context for people to watch in, then they drive it home every chance they get. Dean is the only one of these candidates that doesn't run to look at a poll before he answers a question (as opposed to Bush, who simply doesn't answer questions, that's ok though, he's busy racking up more vacation time then any president in history instead...). Dean tends to tell the truth about how he feels on the issue at the moment. With our system, that's unfortunately a detriment. He was right when he said the Iowa caucuses were stupid, that many southerners want to hear empty religious platitudes, and that nothing is going to solve terror bombing in Israel unless the underdogs get a real chance to be heard.

How fucking sad is it that a guy that tells the truth and speaks as he feels is considered "unelectable"?

It seems a hell of a lot like the same 'liberal media' (ha!) bias that told us Gore was a major exaggerator (N.B. he didn't ever say he invented the internet, he said he played a major roll in funding DARPA, who invented the Internet) and all the other gaffs they manufactured for him, while completely ignoring how stupid and unqualified Bush was/is.

>2. Just for accuracy--I believe that Kerry also has decided

>not to accept matching funds. George Soros can make up the

>difference for the rest!

Soros can donate $2000, same as you. Conservative shmucks have no problem with the DeLay fundraiser bullshit, the Enrons, and all the other corruption from big money, but one rich guy gives to the 'wrong' side and they go into convulsions...

Not to mention, that's the problem. The only people represented in most candidates war chests are people that can afford to give $2000 (and often expect something specific for it, boy they weren't disappointed by Bush!). Dean's war chest represents a far wider spread of the population, including at least one male escort and at least one client. Will our contributions buy us access and such? No, and that's the point! We, and even Americans that don't donate to Dean, would be equally represented. As opposed to the current administration, by for and of the rich.

>Rick, do your homework. Kerry is a millionaire in his own

>right, and his wife is the widow of (former Republican Senator

>from PA) John Heinz, the heir to the ketchup (catsup??)

>fortune. Yes, there may be campaign finance "hurdles" for

>Kerry to use his/his wife's fortune to fund his campaign, but

>don't think it can't happen.

There's a huge difference between being a "millionaire", as Kerry is, and having $200 million in order to spend on a campaign, as Bush has.

Kerry had to mortgage his house in order to keep his campaign afloat just a month ago - that's not exactly the sign of someone with great wealth, and he had to do that before the first PRIMARY vote was even cast. In the meantime, Bush is sitting there with his $200 million ready to crush whomever is the nominee.

There is no way for Theresa Heinz to fund Kerry's campiagn. She is limited like anyone else to donating $2,000 to campaigns. Only a candidate has the right to donate unlimited funds to his own campiagn.

Rick is right - any Democrat is going to have a huge disadvantage money-wise when fighting Bush, especially if - as it now appears - there's going to be a long primary contest. Even Dean would have a serious disadvantage ($40 million pales when compared to $200 million, and most of that would be gone before the general election even began), but Dean is the only Democrat thus far who has demonstrated any real fundraising prowess.