Carville disses Howard Dean

[Homoaffectional]

since when and says who? A few have - others of us have been deeply critical. I believe the political groundwork for our victories in November are chiefly attributed to Emmanuel and Schumer.

Despite the fact that Rahm's golden girl herself, Tammy Duckworth didn't win, even after being hand delivered $3 million dollars, while other candidates that Rahm opposed won with the teeniest fraction of that amount, and in fact it's unlikely the Dems would have picked up the seats necessary to take the House were it not for the victories of many the DCCC 'strategists' didn't want to be the nominees for the districts Rahm opposed.

It's clear which people are rooting for Rahm and Schumer on JUB... conservative JUBers and JUB Republican supporters. Just like it's clear that people like William Jefferson and Joe Lieberman would not be in office today were it not for Republicans. The 'straw man' argument depends on whether or not you're a GOP-leaning JUBer who wants to mitgate the damage by deliberately setting up failure in future election cycles (by making the failures look like successes), or those who back Dean and Pelosi's winning strategy, as opposed to Rahm and Carville, whom the Dems won the House and Senate despite, not because of.

 

[JackFTwist]

It's clear which people are rooting for Rahm and Schumer on JUB... conservative JUBers and JUB Republican supporters.

you are kidding, right?

I've been called a lot of things in my life, and will accept being called a lot of things, but conservative or republican are not among those things.

You know that some people who are members of the party may feel that Dean is an ineffective blowhard? I don't know what your party credentials are but I highly doubt they match mine. When I am at state central in February (or at the next executive committee meeting) I will pass your comments along... much hilarity will ensue at the concept of me being called republican or conservative.

As for Duckworth - that she lost by as close of a margin as she did in a staunch Republican district (you do know the demographics of Illinois' DuPage County?) - was significant. That the DSCC spent money well is obvious in the 51 seats we hold. That the DCCC spent money well - a 30+ seat gain, in seats as gerrymandered as they are nationwide, says it all for me.

Democrats may disagree. Some may even like Dean. Some may even be unhappy with Schumer and Emmanuel. But it is wrong to challenge the credentials of those who think otherwise.

 

[Homoaffectional]

you are kidding, right?

I've been called a lot of things in my life, and will accept being called a lot of things, but conservative or republican are not among those things.

You know that some people who are members of the party may feel that Dean is an ineffective blowhard? I don't know what your party credentials are but I highly doubt they match mine. When I am at state central in February (or at the next executive committee meeting) I will pass your comments along... much hilarity will ensue at the concept of me being called republican or conservative.

As for Duckworth - that she lost by as close of a margin as she did in a staunch Republican district (you do know the demographics of Illinois' DuPage County?) - was significant. That the DSCC spent money well is obvious in the 51 seats we hold. That the DCCC spent money well - a 30+ seat gain, in seats as gerrymandered as they are nationwide, says it all for me.

Democrats may disagree. Some may even like Dean. Some may even be unhappy with Schumer and Emmanuel. But it is wrong to challenge the credentials of those who think otherwise.

You might be right about what you post, but you might want to consider the posting, that I believe was posted earlier on in this very thread, that basically said that everyone deserves a share of the credit, and no one could have done it w/out the well-oiled machine that it became in the end. Dean definitely deserves a good share, for getting people to pay attention to blogs and begin to raise money over the internet, as well as to prod the Dems to contest *everywhere*. It's not because of Rahm that we won MN-01 or NH-01. It's not because of Rahm that we picked up Richard Pombo's seat. It's not because of Rahm that we picked up Ann Northrup's seat in Northern Kentucky.

And we picked up seats that were even redder than IL-06, and that was definitely despite Rahm, not because of him.

 

[Homoaffectional]

And just for the record, their sole victory came against Rahm Emannuel's $3M+ selfish gambit. Had netroots-backed Christine Cegelis had just $500K of that amount and the nomination, instead of the machine-supported out-of-district-Duckworth, we could have defeated Roskam too.

I see a lot of districts on that list redder than IL-06.

 

[iman]

^Of course there are districts where large amounts of money were spent and the candidate didn't win - what's your point? Where to spend money in a campaign is always a legitimate question. This kind of irrational backbiting does nobody any good. All your doing is justifying the term "Deaniac".

 

[Homoaffectional]

^Of course there are districts where large amounts of money were spent and the candidate didn't win - what's your point? Where to spend money in a campaign is always a legitimate question. This kind of irrational backbiting does nobody any good. All your doing is justifying the term "Deaniac".

I rest my case, and then repeat --

It's clear which people are rooting for Rahm and Schumer on JUB... conservative JUBers and JUB Republican supporters. Just like it's clear that people like William Jefferson and Joe Lieberman would not be in office today were it not for Republicans. The 'straw man' argument depends on whether or not you're a GOP-leaning JUBer who wants to mitgate the damage by deliberately setting up failure in future election cycles (by making the failures look like successes), or those who back Dean and Pelosi's winning strategy, as opposed to Rahm and Carville, whom the Dems won the House and Senate despite, not because of.


People say "Oh, it's Howard Dean's fault that we didn't win *MORE* House seats, despite the fact that we *WON* the House, but it's *NOT* Rahm's fault that we didn't win *MORE* House seats, despite the fact that we...

*WON* the House!

And in response, people who point out that the first congressional victory in which we scored a decisive amount of seats in *BOTH* the House *AND* the Senate to take back both chambers since 1994 is under the leadership of Howard Dean at the helm of the DNC.

Call me a Deaniac if you 'people' wish (a mantle I'd proudly wear), but the lopsided, double standard-laden 'logic' of those who spout the 'criticism' of Dean just proves that they really don't know what they're talking about, and probably have some sort of agenda, to boot.

What a joke. Really. What a joke.

 

[iman]

I don't recall anyone in this thread criticizing Dean, that debate seems to occurring only in your head.

 

[Homoaffectional]

The question of whether more money should have been spent on close races instead of in Alabama and Mississippi as Emanuel and Schumer believe is a legitimate one. Dean is leaving himself open to the charge that he is keeping state chairman happy for his own job security. The Dems need to look at this prior to the next election just to keep peace if for no other reason.

Typical denial on your part. At least the fact that you're now in denial of your earlier statement is proof of the fact of how sophomoric your argument is. Everyone shares the *credit* for this victory. And if there is blame to go around (which in and of itself is debatable), then everyone shares that as well. The attempts to lay that solely on Dean's feet are quite laughable. Dean is the Chair of the DNC. He's building a *national* party. If not enough money was spent on close races, than that's no one else's fault but Rahm, since he was leading the DCCC, and it's *THEIR* job to provide money for candidates running for the House.

Iman claims 'no one in this thread has criticized Dean'. Aside from the fact that I find it hard to believe that Chance didn't lob a couple Dean's way (I wouldn't know, since I can't read his postings), at the very least, Iman has made an attempt to justify the sour grapes voiced by Carville, which spawned solely from the fact that Carville's ride on the gratuitous attack ad gravy train (you know, the same attack ads that the GOP tried to use to win races, and failed, more often than not?). Carville has no legitimacy to his arguments whatsoever, and neither does Rahm, if he's going after Dean for his own failures.

Note to people like Rahm and Carville -- if you see the results of November 7th, 2006 as a victory, then be happy and stop trying to cause problems for others who actually want to change the status quo and make reform. If you see them as a total or partial failure, then accept responsibility for your *own* failures, and do better next time. Don't try to make others your scapegoats for your own inadequacies.

 

[iman]

^You need to reread that quote, or perhaps, have someone read it to you slooowly, there is no criticism of Dean stated or implied in that statement.

 

[Homoaffectional]

there is no criticism of Dean stated or implied in that statement.

Good for you. I'm glad you realize it's not smart to criticize the guy who has seen nothing but Democratic successes for two straight years since he took over, reversing a trend of embarassing losses year after year after year ever since 1999.

Now if only you would ixnay on the Ugly American stuff (Google it -- you might find your picture if you do), and realize you were totally one of the people who said that crap about Dean being 'legitimitately' criticized by some for *NOT ENOUGH* victories, while letting Rahm get away scot free for the same rate of failure (according to some).