Why I like Dean

Maybe it's about time I explain this. The Democrats for the last decade (even longer) have had more than enough reason to be angry at their treatment by the Republicans. They have been abused, harassed, called traitors to their country, hounded by inquisitors, dragged through the courts, IMPEACHED, smeared endlessly in the press, had the deepest elements of their character slandered, been disenfranchised and just generally laughed at to their face. And in response the Democratic leadership has just sat back and taken it. Except for a few rare, very rare, exceptions they have never demonstrated the least bit of anger at this abuse. We, the masses, the "activist elite", are angry that our political system has been hijacked by screaming harpies and bellowing blowhards. We are angry that the Democratic leadership acts like wilting pansies against the onslaught. We are angry that they are dominated by appeasers who keep preaching that if we just play nice then the GOP and the media will eventually play nice with us. Bullshit! We've tried that route. It hasn't worked. If the leadership won't stand up and say, "Enough!" then we will just have to go out and find new leadership. Such is Howard Dean, a man who demonstrates on the stump the same level of anger that the rest of us are feeling. To the leadership I say get on board, get angry, or get out of the way. Rolling over is no longer an option. We didn't start this war but by god we are going to finish it.

Bush is strong on national security? Ha!

Paul Krugman makes the same point I've been making for months, though much more eloquently than I, that the Bush administrations alleged strength in national security is nothing more than a glass jaw: The administration's antiterror campaign makes me think of the way television studios really look. The fancy set usually sits in the middle of a shabby room, full of cardboard and duct tape. Networks take great care with what viewers see on their TV screens; they spend as little as possible on anything off camera. That glass jaw is ripe for the breaking should anyone have the courage to step up and take a swing at it again and again and again (hint hint Dr. Dean). George W. Bush: he's not a leader, but he plays one on TV.

A small correction regarding the DNC

While I stand behind what I wrote below, I should make it clear that there is no evidence, at this time, that the DNC supports the DLC in their attack on Dean. That was just part of the original rumor I reported. The DLC part of the rumor has been confirmed, but not the DNC part of it. So, at this time, let us reserve our ire for the idiots at the DLC. My warnings to the DNC remain. If they in any way try to encourage a campaign to destroy the Dean candidacy they will cause far more damage to the Democratic party than they could ever have feared from Howard Dean. Don't do it.

Dean has limited appeal?

My favorite comment so far over on the unofficial Dean blog regarding this whole DLC mess comes from Elliot: I'm an elitist activist! I'm a peace-marchin', colleg graduatin', Chomsky readin', anarcho-syndicalist, post-modern super-genius. I have a condescending tone and arrogant intellectual demeanor! I voted for NADER! As such, I think I speak for all my utopian-ist friends when I say that Howard Freakin' Dean is NOT an elititst. He is definitely not super liberal. This cat is as straight down the middle (as long as the middle's still the middle. These people keep pushing the middle so far to the right and the ACTUAL mainstream says screw it.) as you can get. I want to see an end to the drug war, end to corporate personhood, %100 estate tax, single-payer healthcare, free housing and higher education. I want No More Prisons and an end to the death penalty and reparations for slavery. Is Dean going to give me that? NO! Do I still support him? HELL YEAH! Why? Because he can take Bush out. Pure and simple. I've got anarchist buddies who will actually take Bush out if Dean doesn't, but for now, he's got my support and the support of a lot of people who are much much normaler than me. Dean's the Bushwacker of the bunch. If the DLC wants to run that Lieberman dog again, why don't they just give up and join the Republicans. Their the winning team anyway... If Dean can appeal to someone like Elliot as well as conservative Republicans who are scared to death of four more years of Bush (I've met more than a few of them at the meetups) then we may be witnessing the beginning of a real political phenomena. Update: Just wanted to make one thing clear to anyone reading: by posting Eliot's comment I am NOT endorsing his statement that he has friends who want to "take out Bush" if Dean should fail to do so. My purpose in posting this was to demonstrate that even some anarchists have found something to like in Howard Dean. My point in posting it was to refute the contention that Dean has limited appeal. Perhaps this point would have been better presented if I also had quoted a conservative Republican in support of Dean. I know they are out there because I have talked to several of them.

Luck is where you find it

Here is an interesting thought to consider regarding the DLC dustup. The Dean camp has to consider themselves pretty lucky to have Bill Clinton placing the title of "New Democrat" on Howard Dean not more then a few hours before the Washington Post printed its story about the DLC proclaiming that Dean is anything but a "New Democrat". In fact, I have to wonder if luck had anything to do with it. Bill Clinton has a lot of inside knowledge about what is going on in the DLC. He is their greatest success story. As such, he had to know well in advance that From and the others were going to issue a statement that was harshly critical of Howard Dean. Yet only a few hours before they do so he manages, in a few short words, to completely short-circuit the main thesis of the DLC statement. Coincidence? I think not. I think Clinton did it on purpose. Not necessarily because he is endorsing Howard Dean (I'm sure he's not ready to go that far yet) but because he understands better then the rest of the idiots at the DLC that what they are saying is total bunkum. He probably tried to stop them from saying it and lost the battle. This was his way of hitting them back. A fallout between the DLC and Bill Clinton? Now that would be a big news story!

Is the Democratic party about to make the biggest mistake of its entire history?

There's a rumor going around in the comments section of the unofficial Dean blog that the DLC and the DNC have decided that they should work together to destroy the presidential campaign of Howard Dean before it gets any bigger. If they do this they will prove themselves to be the biggest group of imbeciles we have ever seen in American politics, dwarfing even that king of imbeciles, Tom DeLay. If they do this they will affirm forever that they care nothing about the rank-and-file of the Democratic party. If they do this they will destroy ANY chance the Democrats have to win ANY kind of electoral victories for the next couple of decades. And I say this not just as a Dean supporter. I say it because I see, as these idiots do not, that Dean is the ONLY candidate that is lighting a fire under the rank-and-file of the party. If that rank-and-file see their own party leadership going out of their way to destroy the only candidate that says what they want to hear then they will demoralize Democrats more effectively then Karl Rove and the leaders of the Republican party could have ever dreamed (and all without them ever lifting a finger). This has, since I became interested in Dean, always been my single greatest fear. Bush CAN be defeated in 2004. But he cannot be defeated if the Democrats in charge are more interested in protecting their privileges and their egos than they are in actually working on behalf of the people they allegedly represent. If the Democratic leadership is going to do this, and I have a strong feeling they will, then they are an even more immediate threat to the welfare of our nation then is George W. Bush. They must be stopped. Update #1: Even Bill Clinton doesn't seem to buy into the idea that Dean is a threat to Democratic efforts to retake the White House. If the current crop of candidates is judged on what they accomplished before running for president, the field is strong, Clinton said. And some of those accomplishments contradict the image candidates have earned in the presidential race, he said. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is described as very liberal by many following the presidential race, Clinton said, "but look at what he did as governor of Vermont." Clinton described Dean's accomplishments with health care in his home state and his proposal to promote a national health care plan with a modest price tag as "New Democrat" positions. He was referring to the moniker the Democratic Leadership Council puts on Democrats who can blend moderate ideas that appeal to swing voters with traditional Democratic themes. And Clinton didn't hesitate when he was asked the overriding question: Can Bush be beaten? "You can always be beaten," Clinton said with a smile. "I could have been beaten in 1996." So, according to Clinton, Dean is a "New Democrat" in the same mold as himself and he certainly doesn't seem to be ruling out the idea that he can beat Bush. Update #2: Looks like the rumors are true, at least as far as the DLC is concerned: In case there was any doubt, the New Democrats don't like former Vermont governor Howard Dean and they definitely don't want him to win their party's 2004 presidential nomination. More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one." "It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself." Amazing! These guys gather and sniff their noses at Howard Dean and then accuse HIM of being an elitist! The sooner Al From and the rest of these bastards are drummed out of power the better. Update #3: Looks like the Dean campaign is coming out all guns blazing against the "Divisive Leadership Council" (heh). They have formed a mailing list called the Dean Defense Force through which they will distribute suggestions for things Dean supporters can do to counter the kind of bullshit being put out by From and company. They point out, like I did above, that Bill Clinton, the most successful New Democrat, thinks Dean qualifies for that label. They also point out that Jim Jeffords, a model held up by the DLC, has endorsed Howard Dean. This is something I did not know until now. Great news! I am really impressed with the responsiveness of the Dean team on this. Good job guys! Update #4: There's also a great posting over on the official Dean blog about all this crap. Howard Dean has said the Democratic Party needs to stand for something. Under his leadership, it will. His executive experience, common-sense policies, and proven record on tough issues are exactly what the Democratic Party needs to come together and, with the help of independents and Republicans, defeat George W. Bush. But Democrats don’t have to stand for people who want to divide this party to advance their narrow agendas. We don’t need to take this any longer. This is our Democratic Party, and we want it back, and in 2004, Mr. From and Mr. Reed, we Democratic “elites” as you call us are going to be at the Democratic convention, and we’re going to defeat George W. Bush in November 2004 because we have brought the party back together, because we have brought the progressives back into the party and the working people who don’t have health insurance back into the party and the senior citizens who want sound Social Security and not just lip service back into the party and the Independents who would like their 4th Amendment back and the Republicans who want some fiscal responsibility back – and yes, even Third Way Democrats such as yourself will be back—because we’re the party that stands for openness and inclusiveness, we’re the party that stands for peace, prosperity, and hope instead of war, recession, and fear—we’re the Democratic Party, and we’re not going away, so shred the memos and the polls, fellas, because we’re going to win the White House in 2004 with Howard Dean as the Democratic Nominee. Huzzah! Now that's the kind of fighting spirit I like to see in my political leadership! It is about time that the Democratic party expel the cancer that From and Reed represent. Let the bloodletting begin! Update #5: To be fair, here's the original DLC memo.

Did I ever mention that I think Tom Toles is a genius?

WEBLOG EDITORS ORGANIZE VIRTUAL MARCH TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: STEPHEN CHAREST, (402) 477-7357 EMAIL: stephen@tothebarricades.com -- http://www.tothebarricades.com/ WEBLOG EDITORS ORGANIZE VIRTUAL MARCH TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS Lincoln, Nebraska -- May 13, 2003 -- Webloggers of the left, accused of not supporting the troops for questioning or opposing the war in Iraq, are responding by organizing a "Virtual March on Washington" on May 22 asking Congress to restore cuts in Veterans' benefits, to show that they do support the troops. The budget proposed by President Bush as augmented by the Senate proposes:

"to cut VA spending by $15 billion over 10 years, starting with $463 million slashed from next year's budget. Legislators claim they're cutting fraud, waste, and abuse. But Joe Fox Sr., head of Paralyzed Veterans of America, who calls the cuts "an in-your-face insult to the veterans of this country," says the reduction will slam the poorest disabled veterans and cut GI Bill benefits for soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq. The plan could also mean the loss of 9,000 VA physicians in a shorthanded VA system, he says. . . . [Bush's budget] includes a $150 million aid cut to schools attended by military dependents and support for billions in VA reductions." (Seattle Weekly, April 9-15, 2003)

An unofficial, loosely knit coalition of weblog editors is encouraging a "Virtual March to Support the Troops" on May 22. May 22 is one of the last business days for Congress before the Memorial Day weekend. On that day the webloggers are asking their readers to call, write, or email their representatives in Congress to restore funding for the VA and for schools for military dependants. The webloggers are also asking their readers to contact local organizations of all political stripes and ask for their help to make the welfare of our soldiers and veterans a top legislative priority. Example weblog postings: "Support the Troops" at http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_05_04_mars-or-bust_archive.html#94079829 "VIRTUAL MARCH TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS" at http://barricades.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_barricades_archive.html#200164997

Health care a homeland security issue?

This is what Aziz, over on the unofficial Dean blog, suggests. Imagine the following scenario: a terrorist attack releases a biological weapon in downtown Chicago (much like the the terrorism drills conducted today). Many people are infected with a dangerous disease. However, a large fraction of these people are uninsured. Some of the uninsured will go to county hospitals, and the exorbitant cost of their treatment will be borne by the taxpayer. The lack of insurance will stretch already-strained resources and the overall capability of the health care infrastructure to respond to the attack will be undermined. And some of the uninsured will simply not seek medical care, thus enabling the biological agent to continue to spread. We have seen how the Chinese government's failure to isolate suspcted SARS cases has led to an explosion in the infection rate - imagine how much worse the situation could be were the virus a weaponized virulent agent instead of a natural one. Biological attacks may take days to unfold before authorities become aware of them (look how long it took before the Anthrax attacks were taken seriously). Imagine all those uninsured people wandering around town with coughs and rashes, infecting everyone they meet, because they can't afford the cost of going in to the doctor and having it checked out. The lack of universal coverage leaves us more vulnerable to biological attack.

Playing to your apparent weaknesses

Digby has an interesting post up about the impact that the homosexual issue will have on the 2004 election. I've been saying for quite some time that Dean's stance on civil unions may prove to be a net benefit for him politically. He may lose some votes from the rabid homophobes, but he could gain many more votes from the swingers (heh) in the middle who could respond favorably to an appeal to vote for what is right rather than what they are comfortable with. Put it this way: in the 60s there were many whites who would have been uncomfortable with their daughters dating black men. But they would have been even MORE uncomfortable with laws that made it illegal for black men to date white women. If you frame the issue right you can get people to sign on to your platform even if they are a little squeamish about some aspects of it. One thing that impresses me about Dr. Dean is that he doesn't hesitate to confront his alleged weak points head on. People tell him that his anti-war stance will hurt him now that the war is "won". So he goes out and directly speaks about that stance rather then trying to hide it. People tell him that civil unions will damage him with social conservatives. So he leads many speeches by talking in detail about signing the legislation into law. People tell him he can't win in the south. So he goes into the south and challenges them not to give into the stereotype that they are bigoted red-necks. By confronting his apparent weaknesses head-on the doctor is sending the message that he isn't afraid to take on tough battles and that he knows he can win them. People respect that kind of toughness even if they might not agree with his stand on a particular issue. From that admiration swing votes can be won.

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

I wonder if Dubya has studied this part of his bible lately: Proverbs 16: 1 - 33 1 The plans of the mind belong to mortals, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. 2 All one's ways may be pure in one's own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit. 3 Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established. 4 The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. 5 All those who are arrogant are an abomination to the Lord; be assured, they will not go unpunished. 6 By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord one avoids evil. 7 When the ways of people please the Lord, he causes even their enemies to be at peace with them. 8 Better is a little with righteousness than large income with injustice. 9 The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps. 10 Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment. 11 Honest balances and scales are the Lord's; all the weights in the bag are his work. 12 It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness. 13 Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves those who speak what is right. 14 A king's wrath is a messenger of death, and whoever is wise will appease it. 15 In the light of a king's face there is life, and his favor is like the clouds that bring the spring rain. 16 How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver. 17 The highway of the upright avoids evil; those who guard their way preserve their lives. 18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. 19 It is better to be of a lowly spirit among the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud. 20 Those who are attentive to a matter will prosper, and happy are those who trust in the Lord. 21 The wise of heart is called perceptive, and pleasant speech increases persuasiveness. 22 Wisdom is a fountain of life to one who has it, but folly is the punishment of fools. 23 The mind of the wise makes their speech judicious, and adds persuasiveness to their lips. 24 Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. 25 Sometimes there is a way that seems to be right, but in the end it is the way to death. 26 The appetite of workers works for them; their hunger urges them on. 27 Scoundrels concoct evil, and their speech is like a scorching fire. 28 A perverse person spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends. 29 The violent entice their neighbors, and lead them in a way that is not good. 30 One who winks the eyes plans F56 perverse things; one who compresses the lips brings evil to pass. 31 Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life. 32 One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and one whose temper is controlled than one who captures a city. 33 The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is the Lord's alone.

What will win it in 2004

I was thinking some this morning about the fears of some Democrats that a Dean candidacy would lead to a Bush blowout of historical proportions. They are convinced that the only kind of Democrat who can win in 2004 is one who runs from the center right, what some have derisively called "Bush-Lite" position. There are many who have argued against this position by pointing out that the strategy of running to the right has, so far, not worked (witness 2002). I happen to agree with this argument, but it just doesn't seem all that convincing to those who are themselves convinced that it is the rightward leaning policies of this administration that are in vogue right now. And that, I think, is the fundamental mistake they are making. Bush is not winning because of his policies. He is winning because he is Bush. Bush does not equivocate. Bush does not search around for winning strategies. He just does what he wants to do and dares anyone to criticize him for it. Back in my single days I used to get into discussions with fellow travelers on the soc.singles newsgroup about the Nice Guy(tm) phenomena. Why, we asked, did the women seem to gravitate to the assholes when they knew there were a bunch of Nice Guys(tm) over there leaning against the wall who would never dream of treating them like shit? The short and simple answer is that assholes are self-confident while Nice Guys(tm) tend to be insecure wimps and self-confidence is attractive. People will be attracted to an asshole as long as he is strong enough in his presentation of what he wants because, for the most part, many people just lack their own sense of self-confidence. The same rule applies in politics. If people voted what was in their best interest then Adalai Stevenson probably would have been elected and Al Gore would have won in a landslide. But all the best intentions and policies are for shit if you can't sell it and Bush can sell it. The problem for the Democrats is that they are to focused on the product and not enough on the marketing. Clinton was successful because he understood this. He could be wonky when he wanted to, but he knew enough to be firm in his stand and stick to what worked. Gore tried out the marketing side, but he just looked like a desperate man hunting around for the right message. He needed to find that message right from the beginning and stick with it. Bush is a guy who sticks with it. Even when sticking with it means pursuing policies that are self-evidently ridiculous (tax cuts on dividends will add jobs to the economy? who actually believes that bullshit?) In order for the Democrats to win in 2004 they don't need to adopt the policies of the Republicans. They need to adopt the personality of the Republicans. Dean has that personality down much better then any of the rest of the Democratic field, which is why I support him. If Bush can sell a right-wing agenda as a centrist policy then why can't a Democrat sell a left-wing agenda as a centrist policy? Answer: he can, just so long as he sticks with a consistent message and doesn't waver the first time the heat starts to turn up. It's the tenacity stupid.