• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

So we need 100 more people who are willing to say no and be bigoted racists, homophobes, and extreme social conservatives? Or we just need more people to say "no?" Or we just need more outsiders in Washington?

I really don't follow what point he's actually making. I suspect he doesn't either but I'm still curious.
 
We had a chance to elect a great president....and we blew it. He was in the lead and could have won. Then that so called liberal media and his own party collaborated to take him down. And those things alone probably validate his potential greatness. Entrenched institutions don't like outsiders creating waves and threatening the established power structures. The DLC was more concerned about keeping control of the Party than in winning the presidency. (The same thing happened in 1972....and will happen to Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run.)

Copy, paste.

bkf do you ever assign any responsibility to your heroes for their failings or transgressions?
 
A great candidate overcomes that.
 
Howard Dean didn't do anything wrong in that campaign. He was saying the right things, doing the right things, and had absolutely the right positions on all the important issues in the campaign. He took the term "grass roots campaign" to unprecedented heights, reinventing the use of the internet in national political campaigns with his "meet-ups", "blogs", and grass roots fundraising which raised tens of millions of dollars thru small grass roots contributions from millions of supporters across this nation (which has since been widely copied).

What happened was that when it became evident in the 4th quarter of 2003 that Dean was the people's favorite candidate to become the next president, two powerful forces swung into action with a coordinated effort to prevent him from becoming the Democratic nominee: 1) The Clinton-dominated DLC (Al From, Bruce Reed, Harold Ford, James Carville, etc) whose #1 goal was really to make sure that George W Bush was given a 2nd term, whereby they knew he would fuck up the country even more....no matter the damage it would do to the country during the next four years...in order to clear the deck for any Democrat...who they assumed would be Hillary Clinton...to be easily elected in 2008. And that is exactly what happened, except the one thing they didn't plan on was the emergence of Barack Obama on the scene. And, 2) The National Media which is constantly & erroneously thought of as being "liberal"...but which is really a pawn of the establish power structure in the country...readily lined up to assist them.

I was heavily involved in the Dean Campaign from February, 2003 until its conclusion....attending more than 20 campaign functions during 2003 and contributing the maximum allowed contributions to his campaign. People who were not following the campaign closely mistakenly point to the "Iowa Scream" speech as the act that cost Dean the nomination....but the coordinated attack on Howard Dean from the DLC & National Media began well before that with a constant strategy of suggesting that Dean was "too angry" to be president. So by the time the Iowa caucuses occurred, Dean had slipped from 1st in earlier polls in Iowa to an ultimate 3rd place finish....almost entirely due to this "anger strategy" whisper campaign being employed against him. Then they used sophisticated electronic equipment that could mute background noise in a loud, crowded atmosphere to make it appear that Dean was exactly this "angry" candidate that they had been caricaturing for the last 6 to 8 weeks since Dean's poll ratings had reached dominant levels and many top Democratic officials (including Vice President Gore & President Carter) had endorsed him. That's really when the Clinton-DLC & National Media swung into action against him. It didn't just start that night after the Iowa caucus. And, finally, the National Media dutifully replayed that sound-rigged clip over & over & over again in the coming weeks.

Every time I think you are masterfully trolling you come along and drop a rant like this and confirm you actually believe all of the bullshit.
 
Every time I think you are masterfully trolling you come along and drop a rant like this and confirm you actually believe all of the bullshit.

I can't confirm the rest but he is actually right about the infamous "Dean scream." I am obviously no Howard Dean fan but I always thought that he was treated very unfairly. That being said, every political candidate has gaffes and if Dean was truly in a position to win he would have overcome it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Iowa_Caucus_Setback_and_the_.22Dean_Scream.22_media_gaffe

Dean conceded that the speech did not project the best image, jokingly referring to it as a "crazy, red-faced rant" on the Late Show with David Letterman. In an interview later that week with Diane Sawyer, he said he was "a little sheepish ... but I'm not apologetic."[51] Sawyer and many others in the national broadcast news media later expressed some regret about overplaying the story.[52] In fact, CNN issued a public apology and admitted in a statement that they indeed may have "overplayed" the incident. The incessant replaying of the "Dean Scream" by the press became a debate on the topic of whether Dean was the victim of media bias. The scream scene was shown an estimated 633 times by cable and broadcast news networks in just four days following the incident, a number that does not include talk shows and local news broadcasts.[53] However, those who were in the actual audience that day insist that they were not aware of the infamous "scream" until they returned to their hotel rooms and saw it on TV.[52] Dean said after the general election in 2004 that his microphone only picked up his voice and did not also capture the loud cheering he received from the audience as a result of the speech. On January 27 Dean finished second to Kerry in the New Hampshire primary. As late as one week before the first votes were cast in Iowa's caucuses, Dean had enjoyed a 30% lead in New Hampshire opinion polls;[citation needed] accordingly, this loss represented another major setback to his campaign.
 
Good lord, this was 10 years ago. Can we not move on from this? If Al Gore wins his home state in 2000, this is never an issue.
 
No, we can't move on....because the results of that election are still negatively impacting this country today. George W Bush & Dick Cheney may have left the White House six years ago, but their administration is not yet over....and won't be for many years to come. The havoc that they wrecked upon this country with their foreign & fiscal policies didn't stop the day they personally left Washington.

Personally I agree with that, but you have to move on and play the hand you are dealt (as Obama has). Also there is no guarantee Dean was going to be a great President.
 
attachment.php
 
Obama has gotten us out of and kept us out of a lot of foreign conflicts.
 
What happened was that when it became evident in the 4th quarter of 2003 that Dean was the people's favorite candidate to become the next president, two powerful forces swung into action with a coordinated effort to prevent him from becoming the Democratic nominee: 1) The Clinton-dominated DLC (Al From, Bruce Reed, Harold Ford, James Carville, etc) whose #1 goal was really to make sure that George W Bush was given a 2nd term,

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaahahha

fa7d713d9a2a2fb1624cc4ee86cad0231dcf07c6288c5f18e8dfa4e0a72466a6.jpg
 
Seriously, that is one of the most insane things I've ever seen written.
 
Yeah. The idea that the Clintons and their allies wanted to clear the field for a 2008 Hillary run is not far fetched at all.
 
Don't be naïve. Team Clinton's plan was always for Hillary to run for president in 2008. And the DLC, led by Clinton operatives like Bruce Reed, Al From, Harold Ford, Lanny Davis, James Carville, etc., was nothing more than an extension of Team Clinton. The last thing they wanted to see was a Democratic incumbent President Howard Dean running for reelection in 2008...which would block Hillary until 2012. As I said, the one thing they didn't count on was the explosion of Barack Obama on the scene in 2008...which ended up blocking Hillary all the way to 2016. She is now 8 years behind their original schedule...and I'm still not 100% convinced that she will end up running. I don't think she can be denied the nomination if she chooses to run, but I don't think that choice is a given now...like it would have been eight years ago. Egos are powerful things, though, so I certainly wouldn't rule it out....but if she decides to run and won the election, she would be 73 years old by the end of her first term. That alone doesn't mean she won't do it...but it is certainly something for her to think about.

Getting back to the DLC, though. It isn't like this is something that hasn't happened before. In 1972, many powerful leaders in the Democratic Party worked against their presidential nominee George McGovern....because they made the decision that it would be better to lose an election than to lose control of the Democratic Party to McGovern and his grass roots organization that won the nomination against long odds. McGovern probably couldn't have won anyway...but leaders in the Democratic Party like George Meany & Mayor Daley (and probably even Lyndon Johnson) made certain that he wasn't going to win.

If you think politicians are not capable of selfish, calculating moves like this you are simply naïve.
If you think politicians are only capable of selfish, calculatingmoves like the one you proposed then you are simply insane.
 
The National Media helped the Clinton/DLC team take Dean down....but they were evidently afraid of the backlash if they were too hard on Obama, so they handled him with kid gloves and he pretty much got a free pass from the National Media on everything that he might have said or done in the campaign.

Can you imagine what the repercussions would have been if the National Media had pulled a stunt on Obama like they did with Dean's "Iowa Scream"? People would have been screaming "racism" everywhere.

Is the second paragraph serious?
 
Did you have a particular moment from his campaign in mind for such a stunt?
 
No, because there wasn't anything there for the media in Iowa, either. The entire "scream" story...which the media played ad infinitum...was a totally fabricated "non-event". The media created something out of nothing. If they were so inclined, I'm sure they could have found something equally irrelevant in Obama's campaigns to fabricate into some kind of a major story, too. That was my point.

But my point is that Dean made a funny noise. No one made him do that. Was it blown out of proportion, of course, but a great campaign moves on from that.
 
bkf has a point. Nowadays a sound edited tape couldn't get played because there would be videos from people in the crowd that would counter the narrative.

But yes, a great campaign overcomes that and Dean didn't have one.
 
bkf has a point. Nowadays a sound edited tape couldn't get played because there would be videos from people in the crowd that would counter the narrative.

But yes, a great campaign overcomes that and Dean didn't have one.

Nowadays that clip would have been on a vine with millions of views within 24 hours.
 
Back
Top