Thanks for that post.
Hey, in anticipation of the 2/5 meet-up I've asked the Dean camp for a laundry list of things to cover. Anna, et al. If I receive this in short order, can you please post it so all can share. I know they want folks signed up on the listserv, and a hardcopy signup sheet passed around at a minimum.
Also, if everyone out there can begin generating letters to the editor, that will help. I submitted mine to the American Prospect today (in response to an editorial they ran "The Post Gore Democrats"). If we all pitch in, we can raise his profile locally and nationally!
Best, Christopher
By the way, whoever posted that Tavis Smiley interview on NPR. Thanks! He gets better and better in these interviews. For those of you who missed it, here it is again: http://discover.npr.org/rundowns...Date=01/28/
2003
A great speech by Dr. Dean. Its a shame they didn't have him give the rebutal to Bu$h's speech last night.
Since you are talking about letters to the editor... Be sure to check out this week's issue of The Nation. (www.thenation.com). They have an article on the many democratic hopefuls. A good Dean letter seems to be in order.
On "borrow and spend" (like that phrase!) and the connection to the 80's and Reagan...
I agree, but it also makes me very uncomfortable. There have been a lot of comparisions of Bush to Reagan lately, and we know how nothing stuck to Reagan. I see the same thing happening. Just last night ABC News showed people saying Bush shouldn't be held responsible for the economy!
This stuff plus the unlikelyhood of Northeasterners winning the south ("Liberal" sticks, no reasoning will unstick it) is very ominous.
p.s. to be a little more constructive 
With respect the economy, it might not be a good idea to hope for a re-run of 1992. Instead, 1984 might be a better model. How could the dems have beaten Reagan that year?
todd, i think anyone who remembers reagan's teflon exterior gets your drift. =)
but i honestly believe (perhaps this is the foolish idealist in me coming out) that bush -is- beatable. i feel that if the dems field a viable candidate (someone who can appeal to a wide spectrum of voters) they have a chance of unseating king george.
thing is, we have got to work hard and start working now. or at least that's they way i see it. granted, i'm not claiming to know it all, but you know, i just have to keep believing that there is someone better... i have to keep believing that america isn't lost... otherwise, what's the point? i may as well throw my hands in the air and move to canada or something. as someone who loves my country, i have gotta fight the good fight, and in my humble opinion, that includes supporting a candidate who can beat the shrub.
I admit I'm not in a good mood this week, but I don't mean to come across as defeatist! I guess my point is that there is a good chance that the economy may not be a Bush-beating issue in 2004, no matter what state it is in (just like in 1984). SO... I'm trying to think of what might have worked against Reagan back then.
One reason I'm intrigued by Dean is the bluntness and principles, plus smart and able to quickly think on his feet. The first I call the "Bulworth factor" (anybody get it? ) and the second sets him apart from just about everyone else. I'd love to see Bush and Dean 1 on 1. That's my hope.
Ideas: get even bolder/blunter...
(1) This is no longer a democracy, it is a "corporocracy". People need to realize what they're in the process of losing.
(2) A lot of people end up voting for the person whose policies have the most negative effect on their lives. Point this out. For example, perpetually increasing "productivity" is never questioned. Guess where this comes from? Working more (more! more!) for the same amount of money. DO people realize that Europeans have 9 weeks more vacation than Americans? We need to redfine "profit" to be more than just money, and include "quality of life".
(3) Do people realize what your Presidents policies are doing to world opinion of Americans? He is vorcaciously feed ing the selfish, arrogant stereotype. Don't you resent being labeled by your President's characteristics? (This might actually have an effect, since polls seem to show that American's don't want to go it alone in Iraq.)
1984 was my second election, and I remember that campaign vividly. I started college in 1978 at the height of stagflation and growing doubts about President Carter's ability to lead and make a decision on crucial matters. When Mondale became the Democratic candidate in 1984, memories of 21% prime interest rates and 13% annual inflation rates were still fresh. Reagan was enormously popular with both Democrats and Republicans, allowing him to sweep the 1984 election with 49 states. Mondale destroyed his candidacy when he honestly stated that he would raise taxes to close the budget hole caused by Reagan's massive defense build up and tax cuts. No one wanted to go back to the days of high inflation rates, runaway government spending and higher taxes, and Reagan was able to keep that sunny optimistic vision of America (anyone remember the campaign slogan "It's morning in America"?)in front of voters. Dean is not Mondale, and Bush is not Reagan, and the economy is not in the ditch it was in 1980 when Reagan buried Carter in a landslide and could claim that he had turned the ship of state around. Let's keep focused on what Dean can positively do for this country and contrast his vision with Bush's. That and our fervor should carry him a long way through the primaries and against Bush in 2004. I'm a pragmatic cynic, but let's stay hopeful and energized. Dean is the first candidate I've been excited about since I was 8 and RFK was running for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/2...ine/
26BUSH.html
Anna,
Yes, I am an orange-bleeding Austinite.
Thanks for forwarding my comments!
TXDem - I knew it! You dirty hippies are so obvious sometimes. :^P I'm kidding - when I was 18 I moved from FLA to Austin and really loved the city and it's people. Austin was the first place where I felt totally comfortable expressing myself, and I value the time I spent there. It's a great city filled with people who really care about their country and their environment. Believe me, if there were any jobs down there, I'd leave D/FW in a heartbeat. I really miss everything about Austin (except the traffic, heh) - especially the fact that people are so active down there. And as a Dem/Green voter, I'd definitely be among more of my "kind"... heh, it's so difficult being Dem/Green in D/FW....
That NYT article is pure propoganda. Gah, I nearly lost my breakfast reading it. It's a puff peice in the most annoying, fawning sense.
I understand the attempt to compare Bush with Reagan as a pre-emptive strike (ha!) against any potential contenders. I guess they feel that if they can make the association now that voters will fall for it.
Anonymous, thank you for posting this article because it helps us understand what we're up against. I only wish you didn't feel that you can't leave your name. =)
Yes, the message here is don't underestimate your enemy. The Dems did that with Reagan, and so far with Bush. What I was trying to sayn yesterday is that it would be smart to strategize for the worst case.
BTW, David Gergen and Charlie Rose were discussing this article on Charlie Rose last night. They thought the writer is a good journalist.
I have my opinion, but playing devils advocate at the moment .
Howard Dean is the best candidate for the Democratic ticket.