People Power

Howard Dean Speaks For Me

The Tu-Tu Dems Idea of Toughness

... is to agree with the Republicans about which country to bomb and which Democrat to condemn.

Bush Lame Duck Watch

Today's Bush Lame Duck Watch: 632 (+5)

Nothing really to comment on today. Still to early in the data gathering cycle. I'm switching to a weekly cycle after today. That way I can measure, week-to-week, how Bush is doing in the news.

(Explanation: The Bush Lame Duck Watch is a daily measure of the hits on Google News for Bush and "Lame Duck". The numbers in parenthesis represents the change from the previous days number.)

How does Howard Dean play in the red states?

Given the recent "controversy", it might be interesting to know what the people who "should be offended" by Dean's comments really think about them. I get daily alerts from Google and Yahoo about Dean related news stories. There's been a pretty typical "Dean's a loonie" type columns in some places, but there have also been some pleasent surprises, including this little gem from Kentucky:

Howard Dean was right to say what he wanted

By DAVID MANN THE KENTUCKY STANDARD

This week Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean lashed out on Republican lawmakers.

Among other things Dean said most Republicans haven't worked an honest day in their lives and Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party."

You'd think by now, of all people, this guy would have learned his lesson. In case you live under a rock and didn't see the clip, it was Dean who went nuts in a third place victory speech during the Democratic Primary in Iowa. He screamed the names of all the states he was heading to and ended his speech with a loud, enthusiastic "yee-haw."

Of course the nation media crucified him for the outburst.

Dean's comments this week were wrong but allow me to play the devil's advocate on this one.

Dean was wrong to say some of the things he said, but he was right to act like a human being.

It's a very rare thing for a politician to do in this day and age.

Politicians play a game, that the national media is created. The game is called: "Don't say exactly what you mean." Anytime a politician breaks the rules of the game the media jumps all over them.

Personally, it sickens me to the point of disenfranchisement. Politically correct or not, I say what I mean both in my writing and in my speech, why shouldn't they.

Last year Vice President Dick Cheaney told a United States senator to "F*** off." It was one of the few times I admired Cheaney.

But imagine a career politician like John Kerry trying to tell somebody do the same thing as Cheaney did. I think it would go something like this: "I would like, senator, to convey my aggravation, not at you but at the comments you were making and please ask you to remove yourself from my line of sight in an off-putting and roguishly an offensive manor."

I like Cheaney's version better.

This is important stuff these guys in Washington are dealing with day-to-day - let them get emotional about it. I would be. I'd be weaving together a fabric of profanity, if I had to make some of the decisions these guys made on a day-to-day basis.

And I would be excited if I took third place in the Iowa caucus.

I never understood why Dean was given so much grief over the "yee-haw" incident. The entire country was making fun of him for a few days. I liked the "yee-haw."

People in the media were acting as if they've never gotten a little too excited about something before. I've said, "yee-haw" on a number of occasions, and I'll be the first to admit that.

His comments this week did cross the line. I would imagine that all the Republicans have worked at least one honest day in their lives. And as far as the white Christian comment goes - you could say the same about the Democratic Party.

I think he meant both comments as a hyperbole, to drive home a point: The Republican Party is corrupt and caters to the narrow agenda of white Christian conservatives.

I want to make clear politicians should be held to a certain standard. But if a politician believes something, they need to quit beating around the bush and just say it. I disagree with Dean, but he should be commended for speaking his mind, at least he had the guts to do it. That's more than the rest can.

Chalk this one up for the "being real is a winning strategy". Note how, even though Mann is critical of Dean's comment, he still managed to get the point that Dean was trying to make. Perhaps if people in the media and the Democratic leadership were just willing to credit ordinary Americans with a little intelligence then maybe they wouldn't hyper-ventilate every time a Democrat let's it hang out a little?

Martin Luther King on Howard Dean

via Emerging Democratic Majority:

Addressing a similar concern in the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. said it well: "Our enemies will adequately deflate our accomplishments; we need not serve them as eager volunteers."

"Yes, But..."

Among the many classes of comments that are being made about the recent Dean fest are what I call the "Yes, But..." group. These are people who generally agree with those who say that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with their public criticisms of Dean, but they just aren't willing to buy into the idea that Dean's comments aren't worthy of public criticism.

One of the best examples of this genre (best in the sense of I like it even though I don't entirely agree with it) is this post by billmon. He makes the valid argument that Dean's most recent comments aren't really helpful to Democrats because they appear to be striking wide of the mark (it is much to easy to distort his "White Christians" comment as a disparagement of "White Christians" instead of the Republican Party). I think it is safe to say that billmon thinks Democrats should be more fiery in their attacks on Republicans. But they should make it clear just who and what they are attacking. Dean has a habit of getting on a roll and swinging a bit wild.

I agree with that criticism.

I suspect Dean would as well.

But I still assert that, in this recent brohaha, the damage caused by Dean was small compared to the damage caused by Biden, et. al who gave the media the perfect excuse to blow this story up from a minor squabble into a full blown frenzy.

Dean, despite his foibles, has a better appreciation of the ways of the media than do his critics within his own party. Dean understands well that his comments can be distorted and twisted into sounding like something they are not. But he also understands that his comments, if directed against other members of his party, would be magnified 10-fold (after all, he got his start on the national stage by criticizing his party (but he did so without using Republican talking points)).

Dean saying something controversial is not news.

Republicans getting publicy upset that Dean said something controversial is not news.

Democrats getting publicly upset that Dean said something controversial is news.

It is Dean's obligation to exercise a little more swing control.

It is his party's obligation not to validate Republican talking points by using them against their fellow Dems.

Can we talk about something important now?

The Facts of Life

Hesiod sits the DC Dems and tries to explain the facts of life to them:

The Default mode of the majority of US voters has now shifted from �Democrat� to �Republican.� This means that, absent extraordinary circumstances such as a national security clusterfuck (like Iraq) or an economic disaster, the voters are going to choose the Republicans every time.

It used to be the other way around. It used to be that the only way Republicans could win elections was when the Democrats royally screwed up, or there was a serious national problem.

Now it is the Democrats that are put into the perverse position of benefitting from hard times.

The object of the Democratic party, therefore, MUST be to shift the default mode of the electorate BACK to �Democrat.� And to do that, they cannot be a bunch of PUSSIES!

I hate putting it that way, but that is EXACTLY how the Democrats looked when they attacked Howard Dean. And the meme is just getting started.

Democrats no longer control the agenda and it will be some time before they do so again. But the trip back to the promised land will be delayed by the idiots who think the way to electoral gold is to attack their fellow Dems with Republican talking points.

No one is saying that we should never be critical of Dean. I have been critical of Dean. But don't do it in such a way that it helps the Republicans for God's sake!

Dean brings in the dough

Atrios and Liberal Oasis have the two most visible fundraising drives going for Dean at this moment. Here are their last reported totals:

Atrios : $32698.73 (741 donations)
LO : $14260.00 (unknown number of donations)

Total : $46958.73

Not bad for half a days work. And this doesn't include fundraising that has gone directly to the DNC (I've sent them $10.01 myself).

Anyone aware of any others?

Remember, the only way we will probably ever get the inside-the-beltway Dems to shut up is if we shove a bunch of money in their mouths.

Democrats "wringing their hands" = Electoral Gold?

Wanna know why the public criticism of Dean hurts Democrats? Read the lead on this Washington Post piece:

Howard Dean's recent spate of verbal zingers has fellow Democrats wringing their hands, while generating a big shrug from the Democratic National Committee chairman himself.

Do people honestly think the electorate will vote for politicians who sit around "wringing their hands" and worrying about what people will think of Howard Dean? Some people may be turned off by Dean's brusque manner. But far more people are turned off by the wimpy reaction of some of his fellow Dems.

Knock it off!

Jim Jordon has it right:

Democrats are playing into Republicans' hands by allowing Dean to distract them, some party strategists say. "It seems to me that the shots at the chairman from Democratic elites says more about our party, sadly, than it does about Chairman Dean," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who has advised Dean. Jordan groused, "Not much of a mystery really why we're the minority party."

I suppose it's to much for the tutu wing of the party to understand the dangers of public criticism of fellow party members. But, strangely enough, I think they are getting better at it. The usual suspects (Biden, Lieberman) ran for the mikes and a few others made clumsy, naive mistakes (Edwards, Obama). But many others are starting to get it (Edwards, Leahy, Clinton).

And Dean isn't backing down. That's a huge improvement in and of itself.

Bush Lame Duck Watch

Today's Bush Lame Duck Watch: 627 (+13)

Much smaller jump today. I'm thinking I might have made a slight mistake two days ago in my lookup. I'll try to be more consistent.

(Explanation: The Bush Lame Duck Watch is a daily measure of the hits on Google News for Bush and "Lame Duck". The numbers in parenthesis represents the change from the previous days number.)

Democratic Leaders Standing With Dean

We've heard from the tutu brigade. Now we hear from the real leaders:

A round of criticism from fellow Democrats and major donors about Howard Dean's four-month tenure as Democratic National Committee chairman has prompted Senate leaders to rise to his defense at a public event planned for today.

Originally scheduled as a private meeting between Dean and the leadership team of Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, today's session instead will now include a news conference and photo opportunity as a public embrace of Dean, who has rocked the political world over the past week with provocative condemnations of the Republican party. [...]

Most of the criticism of Dean has come from prospective presidential candidates in 2008, such as Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, who said Dean does not speak for the majority of Democrats, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who said Dean is not the spokesman for the Democratic Party.

''Time will tell" whether Dean has undercut his standing, said Harold Ickes, a longtime Clinton adviser who supported Dean's bid for DNC chairman. ''There are people who are unhappy about it and think his comments are less than helpful. Some of his comments will reinforce the view that he sometimes talks before he really thinks through the implications."

[..]

Bridget Siegel, who resigned last week as the DNC's finance chair for New York State, defended Dean in an interview yesterday. ''He's actually been great in New York, meeting with a number of donors," she said. ''The donors have been very responsive."

The departure of Siegel and two other top financial aides in Washington and California had been cited by Dean's critics among party donors as a sign of turmoil at the top, but Siegel denied any falling-out with Dean and stressed that she supports his mission. [...]

She also noted that the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which outlawed unlimited soft-money contributions and now caps annual individual contributions to a national party at $26,700, hurts Democrats, who historically relied on huge donations from a few dozen wealthy donors.

Dean's popularity in the 2004 presidential primaries opened up a new avenue of fund-raising through smaller Internet donations. His supporters dismiss criticism of Dean as inside-the- Beltway carping and maintain that Dean intends to build a new, more grass-roots donor base.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that while some of Dean's phrases have been inartful, he has been an effective party chairman so far. He accused Republicans of trying to ''divert the attention" of the American people by focusing on Dean's comments instead of what the GOP has failed to accomplish on pressing issues, such as jobs, health care, and adequate armor for US troops in Iraq.

''There's some areas where you may have used other kinds of words, but I think he's done a pretty good job," Kennedy said.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi also defended Dean, saying he had ''energized the base of the party. He has a plan for building the infrastructure of the party. People feel very involved in terms of issues, organization, and communication."

The article could do a better job of pointing out that the stories about Dean's poor fundraising are bogus, but I appreciate the quote from one of the fundraisers who left the DNC earlier this year. It proves that my previous point was correct: they weren't leaving because they were angry with Dean. They just realized that Dean's emphasis on small-money donations (and the changes brought about by McCain-Feingold) meant that their efforts would be more helpful elsewhere.

It sounds like Reid is going to stand behind Dean tomorrow. That should be a very positive sign for the future of the party.

Of course, I bet Reid and Pelosi have been having a little more "frank exchange of views" behind the scenes. But that's the way these kind of things should be handled. It's fine to criticize out of the view of the cameras and reporters.

Democratic Nice Guys vs. Republican Assholes

What a great analogy:

So while I�m making these points, Charlie from Atlanta writes in with this much more entertaining take:

�One of our problems for too long is that we want to please "the media" so much that we lose our courage and we lose their (the media's) respect.

Let me digress for a second, and offer this analogy: I know as little about women as any man on this planet. But one thing I do know is that they really, really like the "nice guys," but they don't respect them and they don't have sex with them.

Well, let's stop being the "nice guys" (the Liebermans and Bidens of the world, the guys the media "really, really likes"). We care so much about what the Tim Russert's of the world think that they've lost respect for us. They treat the Republicans well because the Republicans treat them like shit.

So let the media complain about Howard Dean. Let's be strong and support him and ignore them. If we do that, then the media will come around naturally anyway.�

The only problem with this analogy is that if things go well you wind up getting laid by Tim Russert. Other than that, it�s perfectly sensible.

Being a recovering Nice Guy I know precisely what Charlie is talking about. You don't earn any respect by being nice. But that doesn't mean you have to go to the opposite extreme and be an Asshole. You just have to learn what it is about being an Asshole that attracts people. After many years of contemplation on this question I think it comes down to one thing: toughness.

An Asshole is tough. An Asshole won't take shit. An Asshole appears to be the guy who will protect you when the truth is they will be the first to cut and run when the going really gets tough (that's why they are Assholes).

The happy medium here is being a Tough Guy: someone who is nice, but knows how to get dangerous when it is needed (as opposed to the Asshole who gets dangerous only when it will make them look tougher).

Dean is a Tough Guy.

Reid is a Tough Guy.

We need more Tough Guys.

(standard caveat: "Guy" here includes both genders)

Bush Lame Duck Watch

Today's Bush Lame Duck Watch: 614 (+478)

Did the lame duck theme actually jump over 400% in one day? Not likely. My past experience with this kind of measurement is that day-to-day fluctuations can be huge on Google News. As this is only the second day I've done this I'll have to see how the numbers behave before I can start garnering any useful information from them.

(Explanation: The Bush Lame Duck Watch is a daily measure of the hits on Google News for Bush and "Lame Duck". The numbers in parenthesis represents the change from the previous days number.)

The mote in Dean's eye

The two best comments I've seen on the recent "problems" with Dean's comments come from Oliver Willis and The Carpetbagger. The later gives a long, thoughtful analysis of Dean's comments and makes the valid point that Dean was hired to be a pugilist its just that sometimes his blows hit below the belt.

The question for Dems is how they should react to this? A simple condemnation will not help matters as it will just perpetuate both the "let's you and him fight" mode of the press and the image that Democrats are uncomfortable with "being real". But simply ignoring it isn't an option if the media keeps bringing it up.

Biden, Edwards and Richardson handled it differently with varying degrees of success. Biden took the strongest condemnation approach and, I think, caused more harm than Dean's initial comments. Edwards was a bit careless in his "Dean doesn't speak for the party" comment but quickly stomped on the controversy by strongly coming out with a statement saying that Dean and he were on the same page in their criticisms, even if they use different words to express their opinions. Richardson, perhaps learning from Edwards mistake, took this "same thoughts, different words" approach in his comments (though that hasn't prevent the press from trying to paint his comments as equivalent to Biden's).

My thoughts are along a similar line. I wouldn't use the same language that Dean is using, but I understand his sentiment and agree with it: the Republican party is dominated by people who don't appreciate the economic problems ordinary working Americans face. Their approach to leadership is to play to people's insecurities and moral anxieties rather than to actually address the causes of those anxieties (condemn the perverting of American culture, but don't actually DO anything that might have an impact on the purveryors of that culture, who just happen to be major Republican backers).

Which brings me to Oliver Willis, who, I think, has the best, short take on this:

Ok, this does certify as a silly thing said by Howard Dean. Essentially accurate, but silly.

Not as dumb as sending our troops to die in Iraq, however.

Oliver agrees with the sentiment that the blow is a bit off, even if the essence of Dean's point is correct. But he quickly pivots with the truth: nothing Dean has said approaches any of the many outrageous things that Bush has said and done.

Dean is a mote. Bush is a forest!

We've Got Dean's Back!

Ahhh, now this brings back memories of the 2004 primary campaign. Everytime Dean was attacked and pronounced dead by the establishment media his fundraising numbers would jump. Let's see if we can make the same thing happen with the DNC:

Help stop the fat cats in DC attacking Howard Dean. An attack against Howard Dean is an attack against the American people who work for their paycheck. Please make a small contribution of $10.01 or $20.01 everytime you come across an attack on Dean in the media. If you see the Dean Scream, please contribute $30.01.

The myth of Dean's fundraising problems

Reading the headline on this report (Fundraisers jilt Dean) and some of the subsequent media coverage of it you would be forgiven if you thought it meant that DNC fundraisers were upset with Dean. Well, read a little further and you see this:

The committee�s finance directors for the two biggest hubs of Democratic fundraising have quit. Bridget Siegel, finance director for New York and the surrounding area, resigned last week, and Lori Kreloff, finance director for California, left the committee last month.

A third top DNC fundraiser, Nancy Eiring, the director of grassroots fundraising, has also resigned, citing strategic differences with aides to Dean, according to a report yesterday in ABC News� �The Note.�

Siegel told The Hill that she remained at the DNC for the first few months of the year only to help with the transition to leadership under a new chairman and that �Dean is moving the party in a great direction.� Siegel will raise money for Andrew Cuomo�s race for New York attorney general.

Kreloff has set up her own consulting firm, LBK Consulting Inc., and has signed on Maryland Senate hopeful Rep. Ben Cardin (D) as a new client. She said Dean is �doing a wonderful job building the grassroots.�

Eiring did not return a call for comment.

Got that? Two of the three fundraisers who quit have nothing but positive things to say about Dean. Siegel sounds positively glowing.

So why are they leaving? Because Dean is changing the DNC emphasis towards small money donations which means there just isn't as much for the big money fundraisers to do. They recognize this and are going independent. It makes perfect sense for them to do this and it does not indicate that Dean's DNC is having a fundraising problem. It's just another "changing the guard" moment.

Naturally, some of the big money donors may not like that there influence within the party will be lessoned by this change, but that's kind of the whole point isn't it?

Bush Lame Duck Watch

Today's Bush Lame Duck Watch: 136

Taking a cue from Jeff Alworth, I've decided to start a Bush lame duck watch. Every day I will post the count of google news hits for Bush and "lame duck" and compare it against the previous days and weeks results. In a few weeks I'll have enough data to start tracking trends.

This should be fun.