Dean on 50 state strategy is a paean to Pragmatism and Centrism where necessary.

[stevenleser]

Shout out to DFW for his original OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025928884

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/

"I was a centrist governor" and also bragging about getting Begich elected

In other words, Dean is/was a pragmatist, as most successful politicians are.

"My experience as a governor was that the state party was weak. They were also kind of a pain in the neck. I was a centrist governor, and they were always complaining about things that I was doing, and I was very annoyed by it. "

and

"So the origin of the 50-state strategy was to be prepared to go anywhere. The idea was, if you ever wanted a Mark Begich, you had to invest in Alaska before a Mark Begich came on the horizon so you could be ready. Mark Begich is the example that I use. Nobody expected Ted Stevens to be indicted, but when he was, we were ready. So the origin was to invest in the party throughout the country. "

I love it!!!

On Edit: OMG, and this!!!!:

What do you say to those who argued that the 50-state strategy for Democrats, it brought in a lot of Democrats who were right for those particular regions, but it may have diverged sharply from the mainstream Democratic message? Was that a problem?

There was some discussion about that, and actually that happened. We ended up with some conservative Democrats from Western Pennsylvania, for example. But my point was, you can be a small regional minority party if you want to, and stay ideologically pure. But it’s more fun to have the speaker. I’d rather have inter-party fights in the majority than stay pure in the minority. So we wanted to keep a majority. And the Republicans have actually done this too. Now they did it through gerrymandering, but still. And also the Republicans have better messaging, that’s a whole other story.

----------------------------------------

OMG, that is priceless. "But my point was, you can be a small regional minority party if you want to, and stay ideologically pure. But it’s more fun to have the speaker. I’d rather have inter-party fights in the majority than stay pure in the minority. "

[brooklynite]

1. Hasn't Dean already been thrown under the bus for supporting Hillary in 2016?

[stevenleser]

4. I think Dean is still revered as a progressive hero. And he is one, but he and his winning strategy

work exactly opposite the purists here are arguing things work.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I liked Dean until he gave interviews as Chairman in which he claimed our platform had a plank

opposing marriage equality, which it did not have of course. Either Dean as Chairman did not know the Party Platform or he just did not care what it said. He insisted that the Party was opposed to marriage equality. And that's the sort of nasty politics he'd call 'Pragmatic'. Betraying your base, denying the truth and telling a stinking bigoted lie in order to score some points with the 'independents and moderate centrists'.
He is the very picture of why I am hugely skeptical of national Democratic officials now and in the past.

[stevenleser]

24. That's hard to understand. Wasn't Vermont under Dean the first to approve Civil Unions?

I had always assumed Dean was out in front of the LGBT rights curve. I'll have to rethink that I guess.

[JI7]

26. i think it was a political thing on his part as he was working to get Blue Dogs elected at the time

in conservative areas.

[vi5]

2. Are the ideologically pure Republicans a regional party?

Doesn't seem like it to me. They manage to have a clear cut set of values and beliefs that they stick to, AND they manage to win seats and positions across the country.

Maybe it's not about ideological purity or not as much as it is about some degree of consistency in terms of what the party as a whole stands for.

I'd have no issue with the Democratic party electing people in certain parts of the country who may not be 100% in line with the overall party platform and what it stands for. I wouldn't even have a problem with in certain cases those people voting their constituents needs even if those needs are different than what the party as a whole wants.

But when those people are given positions of power within the party, and often times veto power over Democratic legislation then that's what I have an issue with. For very important pieces of legislation I am all for metaphorically twisting arms and busting heads to get the outliers to vote for what is needed to advance the Democratic party agenda. If not then no committee chairmanships. No leadership positions. And if you get a primary challenger, don't expect to be supported over that person.

[stevenleser]

3. Arguably, yes they are. They are confined to the south and some midwest states. nt

[vi5]

6. O.K. then....

So that would then dispute the premise the OP was trying to state. It is possible to govern and gain seats and win as a regional party if you demand some degree of ideological purity or at the very least a fairly strict adherence to an overall party platform. The Republicans do it.

No matter how regional their positions are. No matter how rigid they are in adherence to their ideology, they somehow manage to win national elections and to get their policies enacted.

And again, it's less our regionality or our adherence to purity as it is how we govern, how we lead, how we message, and when necessary how we fight our battles.

Sure, let's fight for every seat. I'm all for that. But when we have them as part of our party, let's not let the Mary Landrieu's Max Baucus's, Blanche Lincoln's, and Ben Nelson's dictate our legislation or our national policies and priorities.

[JI7]

7. they lost their advantage in Presidential Elections

they lost 5 out of the last 6 preidential elections. and the election they won was a close one where different results in one state would have meant the other candidate won.

and tha'ts a pretty big thing when you consider importance of presidential elections when it comes to the supreme court and how they can affect major issues.

[stevenleser]

8. Well, that's not how grass roots Republicans feel about their candidates.

Tea Party grassroots Republicans think there are a lot of "RINOs" and more centrist grassroots Republicans think the Tea Party folks are whackjobs but tolerate them for the exact reason Dean thinks various ideologies should be tolerated in order to get a majority.

There is a definite difference between folks like Pataki, Christie, Snow, McCain and some of those folks and the Cruzes, Vitters, Chabot's, Holdings, Risches and Enzis.

[vi5]

14. Pataki and Christie are Governers.

They hold no national offices or offices with any legislative or exec branch power.

And Snowe has no power within the party. Zero. When is the last time you heard of Republicans watering down legislation to get Olympia's vote?

There are no RINO's left. They've essentially been purged from the party. And the few that do exist don't hold positions of power and don't get veto power over their legislation. When it matters the party makes them get in line and vote the way they need to, or face consequences.

Like I said, the more the merrier and I'm o.k. with bringing others who may not be "ideologically pure" along for the ride. But they don't get to run the party and they don't get to act against it without some degree of consequence or loss of influence and power within the party.

[mazzarro]

29. +100% - yes indeed!

The idea that the more neo-liberal/neo-con leaning the Dems become as a party the better placed they are to win national (presidential) election is something I don't agree with. The reThugs have won their fair number of national (presidential) elections, in contemporary times, with their strict adherence to their party platforms and they do have a good chance doing so in the 2016 election.

Dems on the other hand are not so sure that the malaise of disappointments that its rank-and-file is feeling in recent times won't carry over to the 2016 when all the rank-and-file gets is that they are played for chumps by the corporate leadership imposed on the party by the Third-Wayers/DLC'ers.

Maybe Dean is a DLC'er at heart and worked the 50-state strategy with the intention of putting blue-dog Dems up for election in the conservative areas/states, but progressives want the 50-state strategy to build up state parties without restrictions or backroom dealings on who gets put up to run for elections and no ignoring of party platforms that is agreed to. I think that progressives don't like the idea of all the machinery of party power residing in Washington at the national office.

[msongs]

10. where white racist christians flock together the repubs do quite well nt

[JI7]

5. and this is why he is supporting Hillary Clinton instead of his home state

senator Bernie Sanders for President.

[stevenleser]

9. Well yes, that and Bernie as yet is not a Democrat and Dean is loyal to the party. nt

[Hekate]

15. Some people NEVER seem to get that distinction, do they?

They say they want party purity (or its equivalent) but then want a man who is NOT a member of the Dem Party at all to run for pres on our ticket. I like Bernie as much as anyone, but this persistent fantasy narrative makes no sense to me.

[msanthrope]

11. You should start a thread on Elizabeth Warren's support of Reagan next. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Hiring crooks as part of a rehabilitation program

is different than hiring them to help you rob a bank.

Which is why Dean was ignominiously launched under the bus with terrific velocity by the current crop of "pragmatists".

[Hekate]

13. Kickin for the good Doctor

also this:

[Union Scribe]

16. And you keep losing.

Don't get me wrong, it's great to finally have the conservatives on DU openly pushing against liberalism. I much prefer that to the stupid pretense about us all being for the same things. But you have your way and you run conservative (er, "centrist&quot candidates and

...you're still losing. Now what? Further right?

[Hekate]

18. Only 4 Recs? I guess some days you just can't win. Great interview, though.

[stevenleser]

19. Reality is a tough sell for some.

[Katashi_itto]

20. Hmmm didnt you 3rd way types do away with the good Dr?

[stevenleser]

21. Hmmm, didn't you purist types keep saying the 50 state strategy was the way to go? nt

[Katashi_itto]

22. Your the one quoting someone you 3rd wayers pitched under a bus

Not me.

BTW hows the current strategy going?

[stevenleser]

23. Nope, I always liked Dean's 50 state strategy. I await your Next bad assumption... nt

[Katashi_itto]

28. No assumptions. Like I said it was your group that threw him under the bus

[freshwest]

25. +1

[ozone_man]

27. Only the media painted Dean as a progressive

Everyone in Vermont knew him as a pragmatist/centrist. It was only when he ran that the media, and later Kerry and Gephardt attack ads came out (Club for Growth) painting him as a NYT reading, latte drinking, Volvo driving liberal. Dean was a cut above the other seven dwarfs though, which is why they threw him under the bus. Imagine asking for a trial for OBL or questioning the legality of entering the Iraq war.

If we want a progressive, and I do, then let's nominate Bernie Sanders.

[Hekate]

30. But the Good Bernie STILL is not a registered Democrat, is he? Please talk him into changing ....

....his affiliation, will you?

As for Howard Dean, I worked for him earnestly the year he ran for president, and still respect him very much. I even got to shake his hand when I volunteered at a fundraiser in the well-monied end of my city.

[ozone_man]

34. That will be a tough pill to swallow.

We'll see.

[madfloridian]

31. Now that Obama is going against his own party on TPP...pushing one size fits all education...

It's time for those who apparently stand for these things to drag Dean back into it all....and paint an untrue picture of his supporters.

I have posted all that stuff you wrote above over, plus more. We had in our local group of Dean supporters as many Republicans and Greens and Independents as we had Democrats.

Now that it is obvious that our president is going against the best interests of our country, defying his party.....time to distract by using the tired old terms like "purist"...or making fun of us Deaniacs again.

[stevenleser]

32. Kick nt

[greatlaurel]

33. Kicked and Recommended. Thanks for posting this interview.

The only criticism I have of Dean is his support of charter schools. IMO, educators need to get him somewhere private to explain why he should support public education and public educators.