Rove or Dean

[burythehatchet]

When all is said and done, and an unbiased recounting of history has occurred, who will be regarded as the more brilliant politician, Howard or Turd blossom?

Remember, Howard's era has just begun.

[gkhouston]

1. well, Howard's a little harder on the eardrums

but much easier on the carpets... people have this tendency to spit every time they hear Rove's name and the resulting mess is simply disgusting... ;-)

[napi21]

2. I hate to sound lawyeresque here, but it depends on what

the opinion of a politician is in the future.

If you were to ask me to answer that today, I would have to say Rove, because the aim of a "politician" is to gain control of as much as you can, and Rove certainly has achieved that!


If the opinion of a politician chages, and truth tellers gain priority status, Howard would win the brilliance vote by far.

[burythehatchet]

3. I'm feelin a lotta love for Howard these days

I think he is an incredibly quick learner and very pragmatic. His growth in the job has been great. He has kept very divergent interests fairly together. I just think his potential to play rough against these guys will earn him a higher place in history.

[infinitehangover]

4. Really?

I saw him on the Daily Show, Superdisappointed... he was so vague. (I don't consider that pragmatic) It was really frustrating to watch. basically cuz it's like "Look, you won't be cut off, you're given as much time as possible. the show is a joke, no one will over anlyze you. This is a cheaper way of spreading the message." I just felt he blew it. I still don't get why the Chairman for a party couldn't say their manifesto.

[burythehatchet]

6. OK I changed my mind...thanks

:)

[Zorbuddha]

7. Sadly

Official versions of history have rarely been unbiased.

[infinitehangover]

12. Do you mean objective?

[Zorbuddha]

18. A difference

without a distinction.

[infinitehangover]

19. hmm...

Well, I suppose I've always been part of that group of people who think every word should have a distinct meaning. Other wise, get rid of that word. I think I react to 'unbiased' negatively pretty much due to who says it. I prefer objective subjective. It seems completely impossible to break away from a subjective existence in terms of writing. As I suppose writing history will aways be biased. You have the problem of a linear writing system to describe events which happen at too chaotic of a rate to detail without having to choose some from of preference. It's a bit of a ramble I know, but I had to get it of my chest.

[Zorbuddha]

22. Objective/Subjective

is meaningful in regard to individual opinion. An individual opinion can be biased, as well. But bias can, and often does, involve conspiracy.

Otherwise...they are synonymous.

[infinitehangover]

10. But in comparsion to Rove

He's awesome. Compared to the shmucks we were given as an alternative to Bush. He was awesome. I don't mean to continue pissing on the Dems, but really they need to realize what media sources are friendy to them. I think it's great that they'll still show to Fox News. Repubs barely show up any where they might get questioned. These are the kinds of things the Dems need to point out. But anyhow... tragically other than McDermont (sic) there really aren't that many rad dems...

[JNelson6563]

9. Yeah you're right, Dean sucks

heh Not.

Here's the deal. The Dems don't have a plan for ending the Iraq debacle. Have you heard of one? No. Know why? They don't have one. Dean was asked for the Dem plan. He had nothing.

With the way the little bunny-foo-foo Dems run every time Dean says something that might offend the neo-con scumbags running this country do you think it would've been wise of him to throw out what he thought the plan was as "speakin gfor the party"?

I always marvel as the political ignorance I come across at DU these days.

Julie

[infinitehangover]

11. They don't have a manifesto

I'm sure Dean, as a person and a thinker, does. But I think the thing is that the Dems as a whole don't and he as chairperson can't explain it. I don't think as a whole they have anything figured out. they're too "after you" "no sir, after you" "no really, I insist"... I think most people don't look at individuals within the party. they pretty much vote for the party. that's why the republicans have so many nut-bags who are vaguely on their 'side'. The Dems show their disagreement often. A good chunk of people don't like the idea of a party that fragmented.

[JNelson6563]

14. That's right

and I have nothing but sympathy for Dean who has to work within such a framework.

Julie

[infinitehangover]

21. "Trust me, nothing but."

[burythehatchet]

15. OK I'll bite

Your statements contain the implication or the presumption that the "system" is in good order. The manifesto, as you call it, right now shares top billing with how to prevent maintaining an independent judiciary, how to prevent the continued gerrymandering of districts all over the country, how to get the votes counted by someone other than a partisan hack. That's just a startr. You see, in the world that existed prior to Ronald Reagan, the game had rules that politicians thought were worthy of following. With the entire political landscape having been nuked by bushfristdelayhastertsensesbrennersantorum, the idea of a vision cannot bubble up until the landscape can be managed. That's what I meant to say - bubble UP - because Howard understand that a leader gives voice to the vision of the people.

[burythehatchet]

16. ...further

The democratic party/liberals are diverse by definition. By being persons with generally open minds, people who are minorities and/or feel persecuted will certainly find refuge in the democratic party. But the goals and objectives of each contingent are somewhat unique, and unfortunately sometimes in conflict. Republicans have an easier time of it - you just have to hate everyone who is not like you. Period.

[infinitehangover]

20. Both parties are diverse, two party system is the problem.

Within our 'democratic' system in which two over-simplifications of beliefs are smashed together, you end up with a lot of people joining up simply because they want their vote to 'count'. I think there are as many soft(lukewarm, tending-to, forgetting term)line-libertarian voting Republican as there are softline-socialists voting Democrat. I do think that the diversity is the beauty and the downfall of leftists movements. But it can backfire: Remember the whole 'don't vote for Nader' shit? Or remember Perot. And of course I don't remember the populists parties of the 19th century. But I do think multi-party systems help balance it all out. What really needs to be done is for a Conservative Christian Party to come into existence, along with a Libertarian party what doesn't seem part of the lunatic fringe. I think ways this can happen is by pointing out how the Republican party cannot fulfill the wishes of both extreme sides of the conservative spectrum. How is a possible to have no governmental involvement and promote state religion? I think these are things that should be brought up more often. It's worked incredibly well of de-basing the Democrats.

[Larkspur]

5. Brilliant doesn't equate to good or evil. Crimminals can be brilliant and

bad.

Karl Rove is brilliant because he helped steal the 2000 election, bamboozled the majority of voting Americans, and made the Hill Dems look impotent or complicit in their PNAC and pro-corporate agenda. Karl Rove is brilliant in the way a crimminal mastermind is.

Howard Dean will be remembered as the man who helped rejuvenate the populist spirit within the Democratic Party and helped stem the tide towards fascist rule. His campaign will be remembered as one that showed Democrats that they could appeal to the common people, give the people a chance to participate in the electoral process and that leadership that listens to the people will be rewarded with financial contributions. Dean will be remembered as the architect of the 21st century Democratic Party, a party of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[Larkspur]

8. The other test for Dean's brilliance will be 2006 and 2008

If the Dems retake the senate in 2006 and make significant gains in the House and/or in the state governments by 2008, then Dean will really be a brilliant politician. Of course, this test relies on the Hill Dems to actually behave like Dems and fight the Republicans, but as Jim Hightower said recently, the reason the Hill Dems are fighting back now is because of Howard Dean.

Retaking at least one of the houses of Congress in 2006 is a necessity for saving our democracy.

[burythehatchet]

13. Oh Lark, I am so looking forward to the mid-terms

And I know that my efforts will be doubled because there is someone leading the effort.

[CatWoman]

17. was it PT Barnum who said you can fool some of the people some of the time

but you can't fool all the people all the time?

Rove is all about smoke and mirrors.

Silly rabbit -- tricks are for kids.