Dean: "I won't respond to blind quotes"

Just caught a press conference Democratic Party Chairman (ooh that sounds nice) Howard Dean gave after winning the chairmanship. One reporter asked him a question with a "some Democrats say that they are worried about the image you will give to the party" bent to it. Dean responded by saying he "won't respond to blind quotes".

This is an excellent policy which I would encourage everyone to follow.

A blind quote the same as a un-attributed quote. The latter is stated as coming from a specific individual, usual with some indication that that individual has some position of authority from which to make the statement (such as a "high government official", etc.). A blind quote, on the other hand, isn't even un-attributed. It's just "someone" out there.

The bad thing about such quotes is that there is (1) no way to know if they accurately reflect what was actually said (because the person who said them can't correct the record) and (2) no way to know if the quote is just made up out of whole cloth.

Dean is taking exactly the right position with respect to such quotes: don't get drawn into the trap of arguing with an unknown.

Dean Officially Elected Chairman of the Democratic Party

Now it's time to get his back. There's a contribution link to the right. Here's the code if you want to add it to your page as well:

<form method="post" action="https://secure.actblue.com/donate" id="form">
<p>Get Dean's Back:</p>
$<input style="text-align:right" name="amount" size="6">
<input type="hidden" name="list" value="dnc">
<input type="hidden" name="referrer" value="http://actblue.com">
<input type="hidden" name="successuri" value="http://actblue.com">
<input type="submit" name="startdonate" value="Contribute Now!">
</form>

update: The button may not work. ActBlue, the site handling the contributions, appears to be swamped right now. This is a good thing. If the button doesn't work you can go to the contribution page directly.

Flashback, Two Years Ago

Dean will be officially ensconced as Chairman of the Democratic Party at this weekend's Winter DNC meeting. The irony of this is that it was at this very meeting, two years ago, that Dean first unveiled his signature "What I want to know" speech. Many Deaners say that it was Dean's version of this speech a few weeks later at the California Democratic Convention that launched the Dean juggernaut. But for me it was the Winter DNC speech that first brought Ho Ho to my attention.

Here's a little walk down memory lane:

What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq. [cheers, applause].

What I want to know is why are Democratic party leaders supporting tax cuts. The question is not how big the tax cut should be, the question should be can we afford a tax cut at all with the largest deficit in the history of this country. [cheers, applause].

What I want to know is why we're fighting in Congress about the Patient's Bill of Rights when the Democratic party ought to be standing up for health care for every single American man, woman, and child in this country. [cheers, applause].

What I want to know is why our folks are voting for the president's No Child Left Behind bill that leaves every child behind, every teacher behind, every school board behind, and every property tax payer behind. [cheers, applause]. [Audience member: "We want to know too."].

I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. [cheers, applause]. 

...

My political career is about change, and this campaign is about change. And what we're going to do here is we're first going to change this party, because this party needs to look in the mirror and ask itself, is this party about the next election or is it about changing America, about changing America? [cheers, applause].

This party [cheers, applause continue] this party--I know--this party needs to be about changing America, because only by changing America will we win back the White House.

I want a party that stands unashamedly for equal rights for all Americans. [cheers].

I want a party that stands unashamedly for health care for every single American.

I want a party that stands unashamedly for balanced budgets and taking care of poor kids and voting together and healing the divides instead of expressing the divides and exploiting them the way the Republican party has so shamelessly done since 1968. [cheers, applause].

I need your help. I need your help. We're going to change this party and then we're going to change this country, and we're going to take back the White House, and we're going to balance the budget, and we're going to have health care for everybody, and we're going to have an America with its best institutions right up to the cabinet that looks once again like America.

We're going to bring hope to America, jobs to America, peace to America; we're going to bring pride to the Democratic party. I need your help. Let's go get it; let's go do it. Let's win the White House in January of 2004. Thank you very much. [music starts; cheers, applause, chants].

Today the party. Tomorrow America!

Dealing with the Yuck Factor

The Moose points to this passage in an "eye-opening" piece by John Judis on Latino attraction to the Republican cultural message (subscription only).

"The organizers from New Mexico attribute part of Republicans' success to Latinos' belief that the military is the best career choice for their young. But the Texans point to cultural conservatism among Catholic Latinos. One priest from San Antonio says, "Abortion was a major issue for Hispanics. There was confusion in the messages from the bishops. My congregation in San Antonio was in a lot of pain over that." He says that some Catholic Latinos who did vote for Kerry went to confession afterward to seek absolution. Ernie and the IAF organizers don't suggest that Democrats should oppose abortion, but they criticize Kerry for failing to address Catholic concerns the way Clinton did when he called for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Ernie says Catholic prelates tell him, "We don't expect Democrats to overturn Roe v. Wade, but give us something. Something that we can cite when the right wing attacks us." [emphasis mine - Chris] He adds, "They feel that they helped build the labor movement and the Democratic Party, and now they feel jilted." 

What I find interesting in this passage is the suggestion that the Democrats can address a lot of the concerns people have on cultural issues by simply acknowledging that those concerns are legitimate. When Democrats fail to do this or, even worse, openly mock those concerns, then it leaves a natural economic constituency of the Democratic party vulnerable to the cultural appeal of the Republican party.

Unfortunately, to many Democrats still have a knee-jerk reaction to more culturally conservative opinions. Back in 2000 Al Gore came under criticism from the left for having said that abortion was "arguably" the taking of a human life. Gore's comment was a simple acknowledgment that one does not have to be a raving loony to feel uncomfortable with abortion. Yet too many Democrats read his comment as some kind of appeasement to the right-to-life movement.

Hillary Clinton is facing some of the same heat for her recent comments about the painful decision to have an abortion.

Yes, I know all about the slippery-slope argument. But we have to be willing to risk a little slipperiness if, as Judis' article suggests, a significant number of voters are shifting towards the Republicans simply because Democrats aren't willing to talk openly about these issues. If you think that even acknowledging the concerns that people have for, for lack of a better term, "yucky" issues could lead to enshrining them in law then what do you think will happen if Democrats are beaten by candidates who openly advocate doing just that?

A Prairie Home Senator?

Garrison Keiller (courtesy Ezra Klein):

Medicare says that even though you're not working and may need special help with the ordinary business of life, you have value in this society. This is a Democratic idea. Be a howling right-winger if it gives you pleasure, but nonetheless milk comes from cows and Medicare comes from Democrats.

I'm not convinced that Keiller would make a good Senate candidate in Minnesota. He has the chops as far as speaking ability goes. But has he ever really been involved in the kind of warfare that is a modern Senatorial campaign?

Of course, I wasn't convinced at first that Dean would make a good run for DNC chair so what do I know?

More Full Faith and Credit

As does Josh Marshall:

So if you've paid Social Security taxes in any of the years from 1983 until today, you've been advance paying. And now President Bush just said that that money is gone. So, you thought you were advance paying to cover part of the future expenses of your generation's retirement. But it seems you were just a sucker since President Bush is now saying the money ain't gonna be paid back. You're just fresh outta luck, you could say.

So here's our question: Does Alan Greenspan think there's a Trust Fund? Does he believe those bonds are backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States government? Does he think they will and should be paid back? If he doesn't, he's got a hell of a lot of explaining to do since it was under his guidance that we came up with this whole idea.

Or how about Sen. Bob Dole? He was on the Commission too. What does he think? Does he agree? Or the recently-retired House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer (R). He was on it too.

Let's ask all of them ...

In other words

The Rude Pundit says it better.

Do you think anyone's told President Bush that his Daddy's friends can't bail him out this time if his "business" (that'd be, you know, America) goes belly up? 'Cause, see, and really, that's the pattern of Bush's business life: run a company into the ground and then wait around until someone who wants some of that Bush-name glory comes over with a wad of cash for a buy-out or infusion. Like all wannabe wildcatters, Bush knows that he's gotta be a gamblin' man. The problem is, of course, that real gamblers know, well, when to walk away. Bush is a gambling addict, and he's got the biggest wad of cash in history on loan from the nation. Problem is that the vig on that wad's a motherfucker, and it's gonna come due. And you can bet that it ain't Bush's legs that're gonna be broken.

Full Faith and Credit

This is as about a clear cut an example of Bush lying as you can find (either that or he is so willfully misinformed as to be scary):

�Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund�in other words, there�s a pile of money being accumulated. That�s just simply not true. The money�payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They�re spent on benefits and they�re spent on government programs. There is no trust. We�re on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system�what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what�s going in�what�s coming out is greater than what�s going in. It says we�ve got a problem. And we�d better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem.�

In Personal Finance 101 you learn that the only "piles of money" lying around are those in people's mattresses and in Scrooge McDucks money vault. The balance on an account of any kind is not a measure of how much cash is actually in that account but is instead a measure of the holder of the account is obliged to pay the owner when the owner comes asking for his money. The money in all accounts are always invested somewhere. It never just sits around.

For Bush to imply that the Social Security trust fund is somehow unreal because there isn't an actual pile of trillions of dollars in a vault some where is equivalent to saying that all accounts are mere illusions and can be treated as if they were unreal.

Try making that argument the next time you get a bill for your credit card.

Now, assuming that Bush is not a total moron (and I know for some of you that's a pretty big assumption), he should know this. Therefore, in making this argument, he is deliberately trying to fool the American people into believing that our bedrock financial institutions are built on nothing but air and can therefore be simply ignored.

Here's the truth: the Social Security trust fund is invested in United States Treasury Bills. At around 2018, the amount of money coming into Social Security from the payroll tax will be less than the money that is owed to retirees. That means that, in order to meet that obligation, the Social Security Administration will have to start cashing in some of those T-Bills. That means the Treasury will have to find the money to meet that obligation. Most likely by selling more T-Bills to other investors or, if we have a sensible administration by then, by raising revenue through additional taxation.

There is a "crisis" in 2018 only if the Treasury cannot pay the Social Security Administration for its T-Bills. But that is not a problem of the Social Security Administration. That is a problem of the Treasury. Or, more generally, it is a problem of the entire U.S. government! For, if Treasury can't return money to the SSA then the U.S. government will have defaulted on its debt.

Let's be clear on this: in the entire history of the United States, through civil war, depression, and two world wars, the United States has never defaulted on its debt. This stellar record of rock solid financing is the reason why U.S. T-Bills are considered the safest investment you can make today.

Bush, in order to scare people into supporting his privatization plan, is threatening to default on the good faith and credit of the United States. If he is not then he is lying about the danger to Social Security. If he is not then he really is a moron and as such is a clear and imminent danger to the safety of the republic and should therefore be removed from power.

It really is that simple.

Clawback Tax Redux

Someone's listening:

Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus joined Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer and Jon Corzine Wednesday in calling on President Bush and the Republicans to come clean about the effects of the �privatization tax� contained in the President�s Social Security privatization plan.

With the new �privatization tax,� the Republicans are going to give with one hand and take away with the other. Their plan will allow individuals to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund and put it into private accounts. But to recoup this money and lost interest for the Trust Fund, the Republicans will issue the new privatization tax, which will eliminate benefits by up to 70 percent or more.

I talked about this a few days back (here and here). This is the clawback provision. I commented then that Bush, by this proposal, was in effect instituting a new tax on the earnings people get on their private investment accounts.

Unfortunately, the Dems aren't using my suggested moniker for Bush's new tax: the clawback tax. Ah well. Can't have everything (where would you put it?)

(link courtesy Oliver, joke courtesy Stephen Wright)

Chafing

Reid ain't nobodies pushover:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid questioned President Bush's honesty on Tuesday and said he wanted "the boys at the White House" to know he wasn't losing any sleep over the Republican Party labeling him an obstructionist.

It was the second straight day the Nevada Democrat grew animated in response to the GOP criticism, and he said, "When you have a real bad chafe, is that what they call it, it's hard to get soothed."

The object of Reid's ire was a lengthy RNC document headlined "Sen. Minority Leader Determined to Obstruct President Bush's Agenda."

Condi Rice was heard to say that the document was only "historical" in nature.

Harry no Daschle

The RNC is rolling out plans to 'Daschleize' Harry Reid in response to Reid's effective efforts to unite Democratic Senators. Reid has already taken to the floor of the Senate to deride the effort and to call on Bush to put a stop to it.

The President's State of the Union speech last week once again reminded us about how much work we have to do in Washington. And in my response to his speech, I pledged that Senate Democrats will not "let partisan interests get in the way of what's good for the country."

I had hoped that was a commitment the President and his Republicans colleagues would live up to as well.

Unfortunately, it became crystal clear today that some in the President's Party are going to keep playing their petty, divisive game of politics as usual. And I call on the President today to put an end to it. The Republican National Committee said today they plan to launch a concerted and prolonged campaign against me. And in an even more disgusting step, they have announced their intention to unfairly attack my family as well.

I've been in Washington enough to expect to be the target of criticism every now and then, but raising false accusations against my family is the sort of despicable politics the American people are tired of. It's disappointing to see the Republicans up to their same old tricks. Americans are tired of the same old Republican hackery, and it is incumbent on the President to stop it.

You know, the day after the election the president called me and said, "now that I've been elected for the second time. I don't have to campaign again. I'm going to do everything I can to work with you." I believe he meant that. And it's time for him to show it.

Actions speak louder than words Mr. President, and it's time for you to act. I call on you today to repudiate the plans of the RNC and tell them to cease and desist from spreading this document they have prepared.

With all the important issues facing the American people right now, there is no room in Washington for this revolting kind of politics.

The President needs to stand up today and put an end to it.

Doesn't sound like Daschle to me.

Talking Point

George Bush thinks its "fantastic" that a single mother of three, one who is mentally challenged, has to work three jobs to keep "food on her family". He thinks it's funny that she might not be getting any sleep.

In Omaha on Friday, a divorced single mother named Mary Mornin tells the president, "I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters."

"Fantastic," the president exclaims, and he tells her she has "the hardest job in America, being a single mom."

Later, the 57-year old Mornin tells Bush that she works three jobs, which the president deems "uniquely American" and "fantastic." He asks her if she gets any sleep.