Author Topic: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats  (Read 4311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« on: November 15, 2006, 11:53:24 PM »
Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over “Rumsfeldian” Incompetence

By Scott Shepard | Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 12:00 PM


Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.

Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.

The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.

Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.

He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.

Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.”

He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”

Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated.

“We should have chased them down,” Carville said. There was no immediate response from Dean or the DNC.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/11/15/carville_says_d.html


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2006, 02:02:07 AM »


105th congress freshman picture



110th congress freshman picture , includeing a few that won't make it.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
WASHINGTON – At 7:30 Tuesday morning, the freshman class of the 110th Congress gathered in business suits on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to pose for a class photo.


In the lower right is Vern Buchanan, representing the Sarasota area. In the top left, on a soaring marble balcony, is a beaming Christine Jennings, also representing the Sarasota area.


A week after the election, Buchanan and Jennings are still fighting over which one of them gets to represent the 13th Congressional District in the U.S. House. After the initial counting, Buchanan led Jennings by 377 votes, a margin so slim it triggered an automatic recount.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/14/Worldandnation/Two_go_to_Washington_.shtml

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2006, 02:44:02 AM »
The Democratic takeover is not as dramatic as the Republican revolution , but is there really anything that Howard Dean could have done to make it so?


Howard is no Newt , and voter anger is not the same as it was.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2006, 01:05:59 PM »
The Democratic takeover is not as dramatic as the Republican revolution , but is there really anything that Howard Dean could have done to make it so?


Howard is no Newt , and voter anger is not the same as it was.

You're right, he's no Newt.  He's better.

The irony, of course, is that Schumer, Emanuel and the Carville DLC Gang of neo-con collusionists "targetted races" in the beginning of the primary races and not only did some of the people NOT win their primaries, the majority of them went on to lose (Prime Example:  Harold Ford Jr who not only DIDN'T "win" a primary but lost using the old Republican-lite mode that the DLC loves).

Carville is just a moneyed-up hack who has realized that Dean represents the New Democratic (progressive) movement who not only doesn't trust the DLC and the party elitist way of working, it only disdains them.

What they are trying to do is actually WOO Dean and get him to do their bidding.  Schumer has stayed out of it for the most part.  He made some dumbass comments on air about Dean but then yesterday posted that he had talked about how Dean was doing a good job.

I think, as do other folk online, that Carville is playing the bad guy so Emanuel can swoop in and be the good guy and worm away some of Dean's power since he has learned in the last week or so that he can't just openly dismiss Dean and take all the credit.  The netroots stand as a bullshit detector to the elitist/professional election losers that have been openly supportive of the BushCo cult and turned a blind eye to corruption of the GOP of late.

What Emanuel (and the rest of the losers) will find is that Dean is savvy and knows how to play them more than they ever imagined.

In the end, this election cycle was about change.  People wanted a change back to people-powered government, not money-driven power-plays.  People wanted a change to honesty from lies.  People wanted to elect people that seemed honest and weren't interested in talking bullshit.

We're feeling the Dean Revolution right now.  What he could have done as president, has been nearly eclipsed by the influence he has exerted over the system and the people who work within government.

And now, pondering it in this fashion, I think I have a new theory about why they hate him so much and why he is assaulted in such a way.  He is either considering running again or is working to set up a party that will throw over Hillary for Al Gore.

Sweeet.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2006, 01:48:45 PM »
Quote
The Democratic takeover is not as dramatic as the Republican revolution , but is there really anything that Howard Dean could have done to make it so?

Howard is no Newt , and voter anger is not the same as it was.

It was not as large of a House victory because of redistricting, which led to less competetive races overall. Both parties knew that going into the midterms. That should surprise no one.

In many ways the Democratic victory was far more complete than the Republican victory in 1994. Republicans lost a number of seats on that day, but Democrats swept the races that were called. It was an event that has never been done in the history of modern elections of the United States. Moreover, the Republicans lost at the state level as well. The GOP held 21 state legislatures to the Democrats 19. After the election the Democrats held 23 state legislatures to the Republicans 17. The Republicans held 28 governors to the Democrats 22, those numbers flipped after the election. The Democrats now hold 28 state governors.

There is really no way of looking at this that makes the Republicans out to be the winners and that includes Newt Gingrich, lest we forget that he failed his own "revolution." From what I've read Dean did an excellent job. That includes purchasing ads on Christian radio at prime spots amongst many other strategies devised by Mr Dean. In fact, unlike Newt, who enjoyed the spotlight and took a lot of credit for the GOP turnaround, I'd say Dean's behind the scenes strategies say a lot about the guy. Well, that and the fact that he actually gives a damn about his wife ;)
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Jwmcc

  • Guest
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2006, 01:59:38 PM »
I thought Howard Dean was irrelevant since "the scream" back in '04.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2006, 02:04:21 PM »
The Democratic takeover is not as dramatic as the Republican revolution , but is there really anything that Howard Dean could have done to make it so?


Howard is no Newt , and voter anger is not the same as it was.

Voter anger isnt the same but it is more virulent. Your idiots cost thosands of US lives and hundreds of thosand of innocent Iraqi lives.

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2006, 11:10:29 PM »
that Carville is playing the bad guy so Emanuel can swoop in and be the good guy and worm away some of Dean's power

Carville and the DLC seem to have a point.

Dean left $6 million just sitting on the table and didn't put that funding into close House races.

There were about 20 Republican seats that the Republican won by just 1 percentage point.

You don't think putting that extra money into any of those races would have resulted in more Democrats winning seats?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2006, 03:50:48 AM »
Quote
The Democratic takeover is not as dramatic as the Republican revolution , but is there really anything that Howard Dean could have done to make it so?

Howard is no Newt , and voter anger is not the same as it was.

It was not as large of a House victory because of redistricting, which led to less competetive races overall. Both parties knew that going into the midterms. That should surprise no one.

In many ways the Democratic victory was far more complete than the Republican victory in 1994. Republicans lost a number of seats on that day, but Democrats swept the races that were called. It was an event that has never been done in the history of modern elections of the United States. Moreover, the Republicans lost at the state level as well. The GOP held 21 state legislatures to the Democrats 19. After the election the Democrats held 23 state legislatures to the Republicans 17. The Republicans held 28 governors to the Democrats 22, those numbers flipped after the election. The Democrats now hold 28 state governors.

There is really no way of looking at this that makes the Republicans out to be the winners and that includes Newt Gingrich, lest we forget that he failed his own "revolution." From what I've read Dean did an excellent job. That includes purchasing ads on Christian radio at prime spots amongst many other strategies devised by Mr Dean. In fact, unlike Newt, who enjoyed the spotlight and took a lot of credit for the GOP turnaround, I'd say Dean's behind the scenes strategies say a lot about the guy. Well, that and the fact that he actually gives a damn about his wife ;)


Redistricting?

As if there was no Democratic Gerrymandering before ?

This turnover is pretty close to an ordinary change not the large rejection of an anchen regime that happened in 94.

If the changeovers happen at a more frequent interval now , this might be a good thing , after all one of the things that Newt wanted was term limits.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2006, 11:51:08 AM »
I thought Howard Dean was irrelevant since "the scream" back in '04.


That was a mistake made by Carville and the DLC gang as well.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2006, 12:40:54 PM »
that Carville is playing the bad guy so Emanuel can swoop in and be the good guy and worm away some of Dean's power

Carville and the DLC seem to have a point.

Dean left $6 million just sitting on the table and didn't put that funding into close House races.

There were about 20 Republican seats that the Republican won by just 1 percentage point.

You don't think putting that extra money into any of those races would have resulted in more Democrats winning seats?

Dean didn't BORROW $6 million dollars.  It wasn't like they had the money and he just said "nah".  Staying wise fiscally is part of the 50 State Strategy.  Carville is just pissed the Dean didn't go into hock so that Carville could then make a claim against Dean's major strengths as a leader.  He likes to stay out of debt.

What's so crazy about all this is that you're out to get Dean for allegedly doing poorly against your own party.  You're putting out there the point that your party didn't lose ENOUGH.

Don't you think that's a little crazed?

And why would you then side with the people you've hated so much for the past 14 years or so?  The Clintons, Carville and all them brought shame to the White House, remember?  God damn.

At the root, I understand this attack from Carville.  He sees his power waning and the return or the birth of people-powered politics.  His status as a party advisor is in decline.  He can see that he will still be part of the party but he'll just be part of the party, not one of the big shots.

Dean has been utterly vindicated by this win and everyone in the Democratic Party knows it and some of them aren't really happy about it.  The ones attacking him the most are the ones who are hellbent on making Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States come hell or highwater.

So many things that Dean said during the campaign and took no end of heat over have been borne out as truth.

The capture of Saddam has not made us more safe.
The Dem Party lost its way and forgot who they were. 
Leaders of the party only care about winning and they think they only have to win a certain amount of races in key areas to do it and that doesn't work anymore.
There were no WMD.

And on and on.

Dean was right and now, even though he didn't win the presidency, he has won.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2006, 12:41:58 PM »
Quote
Redistricting?

As if there was no Democratic Gerrymandering before ?

This was done for incumbents in general and was well documented by both sides.

Christian Century

University op-ed

Non-Partisan view

You assume I meant this as a partisan attack. Both parties have engaged in redistricting. It has resulted in less competitive races overall. I don't see what the harsh tone is about.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2006, 12:44:54 PM »
This turnover is pretty close to an ordinary change not the large rejection of an anchen regime that happened in 94.

If the changeovers happen at a more frequent interval now , this might be a good thing , after all one of the things that Newt wanted was term limits.

What measuring stick are you using to make that statement?  How are you comparing the elections in 94 to those of 06?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2006, 08:17:57 PM »
"How are you comparing the elections in 94 to those of 06?"

In any terms you wish, this is just a smaller event this year than the 94 revolution.


"You assume I meant this as a partisan attack. Both parties have engaged in redistricting. It has resulted in less competitive races overall. I don't see what the harsh tone is about. "

I am being terse on purpose , but I don't mean to be harsh. If redistricting is done properly is the result more competition or less?

"Newt Gingrich, lest we forget that he failed his own "revolution.""

It is the sex isn't it ? Just can't stand it if a guy has ever had some sort of Illicit sex he has to go.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Howard Dean lost 10 to 20 House seats
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2006, 01:35:31 PM »


It is the sex isn't it ? Just can't stand it if a guy has ever had some sort of Illicit sex he has to go.


Some think so. Y'all wanted Bill Clinton  to go over it, but it sure did backfire on ya:

Good Riddance To The Gingrichites
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2006
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.


This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.

Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.

I'm not talking about the policies of the Contract for America crowd, but the character. I'm confident that 99 percent of the population — if they could see these politicians up close, if they watched their speeches and looked at their biographies — would agree, no matter what their politics or predilections.

I'm confident that if historians ever spend the time on it, they'll confirm my thesis. Same with forensic psychiatrists. I have discussed this with scores of politicians, staffers, consultants and reporters since 1994 and have found few dissenters.

Politicians in this country get a bad rap. For the most part, they are like any high-achieving group in America, with roughly the same distribution of pathologies and virtues. But the leaders of the GOP House didn't fit the personality profile of American politicians, and they didn't deviate in a good way. It was the Chess Club on steroids.

The iconic figures of this era were Newt Gingrich, Richard Armey and Tom Delay. They were zealous advocates of free markets, low taxes and the pursuit of wealth; they were hawks and often bellicose; they were brutal critics of big government.

Yet none of these guys had success in capitalism. None made any real money before coming to Congress. None of them spent a day in uniform. And they all spent the bulk of their adult careers getting paychecks from the big government they claimed to despise. Two resigned in disgrace.

Having these guys in charge of a radical conservative agenda was like, well, putting Mark Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Indeed, Foley was elected in the Class of '94 and is not an inappropriate symbol of their regime.

More than the others, Newton Leroy Gingrich lived out a very special hypocrisy. In addition to the above biographical dissonance, Gingrich was one of the most sharp-tongued, articulate and persuasive attack dogs in modern politics. His favorite target was the supposed immorality and corruption of the Democratic Party. With soaring rhetoric, he condemned his opponents as anti-American and dangerous to our country's family values — "grotesque" was a favorite word.

Yet this was a man who was divorced twice — the first time when his wife was hospitalized for cancer treatment, the second time after an affair was revealed.

Gingrich made his bones in the party by relentlessly attacking Democratic corruption, yet he was hounded from office because of a series of serious ethics questions. He posed as a reformer of the House, yet championed a series of deforms that made the legislative process more closed, more conducive to hiding special interest favors and less a forum for genuine debate.

And he did it all with epic sanctimony.

These squirrelly guys attracted and promoted to power similarly odd colleagues: birds of a feather, you know, stick together. Bill Clinton of Monica Lewinsky fame had no more zealous and moralistic critic than Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who ran a then-powerful committee. In the course of his crusade, Burton was forced to admit he had actually fathered a child in an extramarital affair.

The man who led the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings with equal, if saner, bloodlust was Rep. Henry Hyde. In the midst of this, Hyde was forced to admit to a five-year affair.

When Gingrich stepped down, Republicans turned to a master Louisiana pork-barreller, Robert Livingston. That lasted a day or so, until Livingston (you guessed it) admitted to having extramarital affairs.

Livingston was succeeded by Dennis Hastert, perhaps the most, well, conventional of the GOP leaders of his era. Still, Hastert was a hawk with no military service and a defender of the rich with no money or experience in business.

In this year's election cycle, House Republicans were justly vilified for their subservience to the corruptions of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay's entire K Street project. While extreme, there have been many other periods of extreme corruption in Congress.

What marked this Republican cadre was not their corruption, but the chips on their shoulders.

It was a localized condition. It didn't spread to the Senate. The Republican leaders there — again, suspend your ideology and just look at biography — were pretty typical American politicians.

Bob Dole, Trent Lott and Bill Frist were not acting out in office. They were not ideologues and did not use the rhetoric of the righteous. The colleagues that wielded the most power — like McCain, Simpson, Lugar, Specter, Stevens, Warner — have had long runs of service in several arenas relatively free of public and private embarrassment and hypocrisy — and even some substantial accomplishments pre-Senate.

History reveals that great leaders and intellectuals often appear in clusters, inspiring and motivating each other to extraordinary achievement. American historians have focused on this in recent books looking at the "founding brothers," Lincoln's "team of rivals," the 19th-century pragmatist philosophers called "the metaphysical club," Roosevelt's New Dealers and Kennedy's "best and the brightest."

The opposite is also true.

What's next for the House is of course uncertain, but an undistinguished chapter has come to a close. Good riddance.


Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/opinion/meyer/printable2182755.shtml