Friday, July 28, 2006

Howard Dean: The Electric Mouth

Plug him in and watch him go.
Dean said in Wednesday's speech that Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson is "going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris, who didn't understand that it is ethically improper to be the chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin."

Yeah, that's Howard for you. But let's read this article and see if him comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin is the real story, here.
Harris holds a commanding lead in the bid for the Republican nomination Sept. 5 against three lesser-known opponents, but she trails Nelson by 37 percentage points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Now we see the story. Bill Nelson leads Harris by 37%. Yet, Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, is campaigning for Nelson? There are two ways to look at this.

1. If I am Nelson, I say to Dean, "Thanks buddy, but I have a 37% lead and this thing is in the bag and I do not need you to help me.". Because if anyone were physically able to screw up a 37% lead at this stage of the game, it would be Dean.

2. Why isn't Dean helping out in the tighter races, where there is a need for hard campaigning at this stage? Answer: Because the Dems do not want him screwing up their chances to pick up seats, there. Put him where he can do the least amount of damage, as humanly possible.

I like that strategy. If you think about it, it makes good sense. Call it pro-active damage control.

But the best strategy the Dems could implement, is get rid of him. The best strategy they could have ever implemented is NOT even pick him to be the Chairman, to begin with. He is a major liability and embarassment to most anyone that has any hopes of getting elected on the Dem ticket, both now and in the future.

14 comments:

Love said...

Aren't Howard Dean and the Dixie Chicks the only people who opposed the war in Iraq prior to the war?

LASunsett said...

Love,

Surely you can come up with a better question, then this.

The post isn't about the Dixie Chicks or the war. It is about Howard Dean and how you defend him for the stupid comments, he makes. His opposition to the war doesn't have anything to do with his "out of control" rantings. Many people that opposed the war do not act like him.

G_in_AL said...

I think they had to keep him because he became the new poster boy for the internet dems.

So they put him in a spot of relative spotlight, but limited ramifications on the party... but he's still finds a way.

A.C. said...

The Howard Dean show is really an enigma, LA. Do you think the democrats really believe in everything he says, or did they set him up as a salesman to draw donations from the nutcake wing-- who might write bigger checks?

The Dems know the MSM will cut their party chairman slack but won't do the same for the RNC. They're exploiting that perk for all it's worth, but it still ain't won em any elections yet.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Because if anyone were physically able to screw up a 37% lead at this stage of the game, it would be Dean

I was going to write a post about Dean blowing it for Nelson. That would be way too funny.

BabyHair said...

I get a kick out of Howard Dean. What he said about Katherine Harris is true.

LASunsett said...

Babyhair,

//I get a kick out of Howard Dean. What he said about Katherine Harris is true.//

How many people has she had killed because someone was a threat to her? How many Jews did she kill? How many people disappeared to Siberia during her career, at her command? How much fear does she create for anyone?

You really need to read up on Stalin.

LASunsett said...

AC,

//The Howard Dean show is really an enigma, LA. Do you think the democrats really believe in everything he says, or did they set him up as a salesman to draw donations from the nutcake wing-- who might write bigger checks?//

I think that strategy has backfired. I have read several accounts of money troubles in the DNC. Not so much that that can't take it in, but that they spend it too fast.

Go figure.

LASunsett said...

AICS,

//I was going to write a post about Dean blowing it for Nelson.//

Go ahead. He's a laugh a minute. You just can't make up material nearly as good as he does by just being himself.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link about the end of the british reimbursement of its ww2 debt with the US. It was much talked about 3 months ago.
Now, since you made the assumption that the French hadn't pay their WW2 debt to the US, will you please send me a link (reliable) to the effect that France didn't pay her debt to the US by the end of the 50' (the US terms were less generous with the French than with the Brits...)
I've done my part, do yours...
And remember: "Affirmanti incumbit probatio"

(I post this comment on an inappropriate thread fear you'd miss
it were I to post it where it belongs)

Anonymous said...

You'll have a hard time finding a birdbrain like me...
Here's the link I'm refering to...
Or http://tinyurl.com/jgkkf

Flocon

LASunsett said...

Flocon,

//Now, since you made the assumption that the French hadn't pay their WW2 debt to the US, will you please send me a link (reliable) to the effect that France didn't pay her debt to the US by the end of the 50' (the US terms were less generous with the French than with the Brits...)//

Did you even read my last reply to you, on this? If so, then you know how I came to believe this.

According to Amerloque and the source that he provided, the debt was paid off in 1963, which was not the 1950s as you claimed. As for Britain, I know they haven't paid yet. That is why they still allow us to have bases there. But we were not talking about Britain, were we?

And one more time, the war debt was not the subject of the post, to begin with. It was an aside. It was something that was related to me by old WWII vets. Hell, I was not even in High School yet. I was merely using it to illustrate a larger point that you obviously did not get.

So, you can now put your microscope away and join the rest of us, while we discuss the bigger picture.

BabyHair said...

Take it easy, LA Sunsett! It was just a play on words by Dean. He and I both realize that she isn't Stalin. It was a figure of speech. He didn't mean it literally. Don't you have a sense of humor? Apparently not! It was funny what he said about Harris. It was designed to be controversial. If she and other Republicans can't take it, maybe they shouldn't be involved in politics.

LASunsett said...

Babyhair,

//It was just a play on words by Dean. He and I both realize that she isn't Stalin. It was a figure of speech. He didn't mean it literally.//

Did he mean it when he said, "John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy."?

How about:

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

"I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do."

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers."


The above quote was from NBC's Meet The Press and Tim Russert followed by asking, "Serve his jail sentence? He--what's he been convicted of?"

To which he replied, "He hasn't been convicted yet, but he is also, in addition to the things that I just mentioned, under investigation in Texas by a district attorney down there for violating the campaign finance laws of Texas by funneling corporate donations, which is illegal, into certain campaign activities. This gentleman is not an ethical person, and he ought not to be leading Congress, period. And it is endemic of what happens in Congress when one party controls everything."

How about this one?

"I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission." -- Howard Dean describing a theory held by some that President George W. Bush knew about the 9-11 attack coming to America."

Now back to your comments:

Don't you have a sense of humor? Apparently not! It was funny what he said about Harris. It was designed to be controversial. If she and other Republicans can't take it, maybe they shouldn't be involved in politics.

I do have a sense of humor, but it's not me we are talking about, here. We are talking about the Chairman of the DNC and how ridiculous his statements are. He is in a serious position and is not being paid to be a comedian.

If he wants to be funny, then he should resign his position and see if he can get a gig touring the comedy club circuit.

No, I can enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone. I think it's a good escape from the problems we all face, individually and collectively. But, when you are in a position like Dean's, it's serious business. And if I were running somewhere on the Dem ticket, I sure as hell would not want him campaigning for me.