Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Howard Dean is just out there!
Topic Started: Aug 12 2005, 07:37 PM (223 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Dean works to energize state's Democratic Party

Quote:
 
By COLIN MANNING

CONCORD — Former presidential candidate Howard Dean returned to New Hampshire Wednesday in his latest role as Democratic National Committee chairman.

His message: It's time for Democrats to return to the White House.

Dean greeted the party faithful at a fundraiser at the Common Man restaurant, shook hands and continued his 50-state strategy tour to energize Democrats by reaching out to the party base.

With the next presidential election still three years away and no clear Democratic frontrunner, Dean stressed the importance of grassroots organization in an effort to remove Republicans from power in the nation's capital.

"The burden of proof is on us," Dean said. "Our job is not just to say what we don't like about the president. Our job is to make sure that when we get in we earn the right to stay."

Dean also applauded New Hampshire Democrats for leading the charge in the state's turn to "blue" in the last election. While New Hampshire went for President George W. Bush in 2000, Kerry won the state's four electoral votes in 2004 in his unsuccessful bid for president.

The chairman stressed the need for a unified party to carry the successful formula New Hampshire presented in the last election.

"We need to frame the debate and set the debate," Dean said. "We need to tell Americans what Democrats stand for and not let Karl Rove do it."

Pundits across the nation have said the last election was won on moral values, but Dean said it is the Democratic Party which stands on morality, not Republicans. He said Democrats stand for fiscal restraint, health insurance for all, election reform and better defense and energy policies.

Dean also couldn't let the event go without a direct shot at the president.

"President Bush's numbers are the lowest of his term and he deserves that," Dean said to applause. "We need to buy back our government from the corporations that have paid George Bush to run it."

He also said Republicans in this area are easier to deal with than most.

"New England Republicans are different than most. They are more reasonable and thoughtful," Dean said. "You don't get as many right-wing wackos."

Dean also described Bush's desire to privatize social security as "nutty."

"Americans do not want to privatize social security," he said. "They're too smart to turn social security over to the people who ran Enron."

Dean, as a candidate, pledged support for New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary. When reporters pressed him to offer the same support as chairman, he simply said: "Good try."

(Bold Added)

:jawdrop: Dean is just out there. I am not even right wing (or Republican), and I take offense to that (re: the bolded comments). He appears to be trying to compliment New England Republicans (ahem, kiss butt), but ends up insulting Republicans everywhere else.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Article
 
Dean greeted the party faithful at a fundraiser at the Common Man restaurant, shook hands and continued his 50-state strategy tour to energize Democrats by reaching out to the party base.

I honestly don’t think he or the DNC knows who the party base is. Dean needs to form his own party called ‘Kooks R Us.’ Because that is what he sounds like when he rants on the way he does in the linked article. Kooky!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
I think that the party needs to get more moderate activists in its ranks since it is the activists that are doing things like putting Dean as the head of the DNC and you are very right, this guy is way, way out there.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Democratic party is still reeling form the last 5 years of upset. The problem is that instead of putting their ear to the group and hearing what the people want, they keep with the old tactics that caused the last 5 years of upset. The Democratic base has to take back the Democratic party before it can take bake the white house.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
What is it with him?

I'm reading the article and basically agreeing with him as far as his being on message goes (YES! The Democratic Party needs to define itself and not let the Republicans/Karl Rove do it for them!). Then he goes makes his remark about New England Republicans vs. Most Republicans and completely shoots himself in the foot again!

If people want to pick on President Bush for the way he butchers grammar, then Dean is most definitely his Democratic counterpart...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
I do not know how accurate the exit polls are but the number one reason for a person's vote was moral values. The dems appear to support homosexual marrage, appear anti-Christian, and want unlimited abortion on demand (including partial birth abortion) without parental notification. I think this is out of step with the majority of Americans today.

On the other hand, main stream Americans are opposed to Bush's privatization plan for Social Security, are turning against the Iraq war, and want the borders secured and the illegals deported. The dems have an opening here.

The dems should stop supporting homosexual marriage, support Christians, and take a moderate approach on abortion.

The republicans should state they do not favor privatization since Americans do not want it, succeed in the Iraq war to the point that terrorist attacks are much less & Americans are not being killed any longer, and secure the border.

I do not think the dems can change because that is there base. It is not too late for the republicans to change. Since the country is so evenly divided, I suspect the near future races to be very close and either party could win.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
How do you know main stream Americans are opposed to Bush's privatization plan for Social Security?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dandandat
Aug 12 2005, 11:59 PM
How do you know main stream Americans are opposed to Bush's privatization plan for Social Security?

From the polls. As I recall, over 60% of Americans are against it. The more Bush talks about it, the more he drops in the polls.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
who
Aug 13 2005, 01:03 AM
Dandandat
Aug 12 2005, 11:59 PM
How do you know main stream Americans are opposed to Bush's privatization plan for Social Security?

From the polls. As I recall, over 60% of Americans are against it. The more Bush talks about it, the more he drops in the polls.

I have tried to look for information on this, do you have any to provide?

Edit - check that I fond this ----> http://www.rockthevote.com/pdf/soc_sec_pr_acc.pdf

Quote:
 

Public Attitudes Toward Private Accounts

Most public opinion polls on private accounts pose the issue in a simplistic
manner. These polls ask respondents if they favor allowing individuals to invest
a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market. In most of these
surveys, about half the adult population favors this option. But this question
appears to be essentially asking about people’s preference for handling their own
money. It seems reasonable that many people would favor this approach to
investing.

In fact, this survey contained questions with three of the most common
messages proponents of private accounts employ – control, legacy, and wealth.
As our survey indicates, many Americans favor personal control in their lives; like
the idea of leaving a legacy; and desire wealth. However, the fact that many
people exhibit these typical American preferences does not mean the public is
willing to damage what they value about Social Security in order to get them.

This survey suggests that once people of all ages, race/ethnicities, and
genders hear some of the consequences associated with private accounts
support for them decreases considerably.


As many national surveys found, about half of the American public
support private accounts when the survey question simply asks
about the option to invest some of their Social Security
contributions, and does not specify consequences
In this survey, 53% of the adult public initially favors allowing
workers to invest up to $1,300 of their Social Security contributions
in individual retirement accounts.
As might be expected, this
support for private accounts is stronger among younger populations
and much weaker among those ages 60 and over. About half of
women, African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans support
private accounts when no consequences are specified.

Regardless of age, race/ethnicity, or gender, when respondents are
exposed to the benefit cuts, greater federal debt, or the passing of debt to
their children, caused by draining money from Social Security in order to
create private accounts, majorities oppose these accounts
. In fact, the
initial 53% of the adult public who favor private accounts drops to between
20% and 40% depending on the consequence presented.


It would seem there is two things going on here and the results you are referring to are what comes out only after people are exposed to the "consequences" of socially security privatization. But how accurate can that be when these "consequences" are hotly debated on whether they are true or not? . Before they are exposed to these “consequences” the polls show that about half of America is for the plan.

For example if I where to take a poll asking people "Would you be in favor of me giving you ten dollars", I can assume I would get a favorable outcome. If I then asked "would you still be in favor of me giving you ten dollars if it means I get to punch you in the face" I can then assume I would get an unfavorable out come. In both cases their outcomes are accurate when discussing each question individually, but I should not be able to use the second questions results to say that most people I polled are not in favor of me giving them ten dollars (the first question). It seems to me that these polls on privatization of social sectary are doing just that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dandandat, this suggests that 60-80% of informed Americans are opposed to private accounts. This is consistent with what I have seen on the news. The more Bush tried to push the accounts, the more it was discussed, the more people became opposed to them, and the more his ratings dropped. I think we have discussed this topic before and it is somewhat off-topic here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
who
Aug 13 2005, 08:42 AM
Dandandat, this suggests that 60-80% of informed Americans are opposed to private accounts. This is consistent with what I have seen on the news. The more Bush tried to push the accounts, the more it was discussed, the more people became opposed to them, and the more his ratings dropped. I think we have discussed this topic before and it is somewhat off-topic here.

I know, I did not say that it didn’t. I question the manner in which the questions have been asked in the polls and how the conclusions are drawn. It would seem that your results only manifest when people are told of the “consequences” to privatization, but these consequences are highly debated on their truthfulness. With out speaking of the Consequences (which are debatable) it would seem that half of America is for the plan. So for your idea that 60-70% of Americans are against the plan to be true, you would first have to validate the possibility of the consequences told to the people polled. Other wise you aren't asking about Bush specific plan but generic plan that would result in these consequences which may or may not be repetitive of Bush’s plan.

For example - I am for privatization of social security. This means if asked the first set of questions of simply whether I am for privatization of social security or not, I would answer For (just as 50% of Americas have). But I would not be for a privatization plan that resulted in shifting the cost to my children, So when asked whether I am for a privatization plan that resulted in this “consequence” I would answer Against. Now that said I do not believe Bush’s plan will result in this “consequence” so it would be wrong for a poll analyzer to use my answer to the second question as an indication that I am against Bush’s privatization plan, but form what I have read here it would seem this is exactly what is happening. If a poll analyzer wanted to use the results of question two to impact question one, It would be prudent to ask a third question of whether the polled believes that the “consequences” mentioned in question two represent the true consequences to the plan asked about in question one. That, form what I can tell, is not being asked.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dandandat, I understand what you are saying about polls. I think another indicator that this is not popular with the public is that Congress is not pushing private accounts. In Congress there has been some discussion about making Social Security solvent (private accounts would make Social Security less solvent).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
who
Aug 13 2005, 03:02 PM
Dandandat, I understand what you are saying about polls. I think another indicator that this is not popular with the public is that Congress is not pushing private accounts. In Congress there has been some discussion about making Social Security solvent (private accounts would make Social Security less solvent).

That would be a better indicator, it would seem, rightly or wrongly, the idea has fallen out of favor. What I regret however is that with all the mud slinging the issue of fixing social sectary will be once again pushed away and nothing will get done until it finally crashes. The thing is the 40+ year olds in this country (which make up a great deal people in the fight to do anything about it) will get there’s leaving the burden on my generation and the next alone.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dandandat, I think the one thing Bush has done (to his political detriment) is raise the issue. From what I have heard, Medicare and Mediaide are in much worse situations. I also understand that these same problems are much worse in other countries including those countries in Europe.

I think that terrorism, Iraq, and our southern border have taken the forefront in politics now. I do wish that the politicians would spend more energy in these and other issues instead of partisan politics.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
What about telling people the potential negative consequence of failing to reform the social security system. Interesting if that increased those in favour.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus