Why I oppose Dean for DNC Chair
I'm not a Democrat. So, why should I care who they choose to run the DNC? It doesn't effect me directly. Or does it?
In all fairness, whether it may effect me or not is a matter of conjecture and second-guessing the future on my part. And I don't pretend otherwise. But, given the nature of politics it's an exercise that I think has to be undertaken by any patriot. And I consider myself a patriot. In fact, that plays a large role in why I've been an Indie for so many years. But, I digress...
My concern with Dean and the DNC position is that he would then become part of the Democratic Party Establishment... he would have inherently divided loyalties.
Dean is a maverick. That's really the primary thing that initially attracted me to him. By the same token, I was a huge McCainiac for the very same reason. I perceived both men to not be nearly as beholden to special interests - whether they be the Party Establishment or any other interest - as they are/were to We The People. They both empitomized, in my eyes, the "country first, party second" philosophy that I view as synonymous with Statesmanship and Patriotism.
For his part, McCain disappoints me. In my eyes he has clearly chosen Party first. And I would hate to see Dean take a similar path. There are far too few politicians on the national stage who have the courage to buck special interests already.
30 Comments:
McCain is shunning his maverick label of late only to set himself up for a '08 run in my opinion. If you are a real McCain fan, this should make you happy because it is the only way he has a chance of getting the Republican nomination. The idea is that once he got it, he would go back to his usual self and tell R' to screw off...it's pure pragmatism, he is not a party man.
Perhaps. But, I'm no longer a McCainiac. I don't trust him. How could I know when he'll next latch his lips to the nearest NeoCon sphincter for political reasons?
There's an old saying that I try to live by, for the most part: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...
Dubya's version is: Fool me once... uh... shame on you, fool me... uh... er... uh... We can't get fooled again!
LOL
HA! LOL
Kevin, I take your meaning to be that you want Dean to be free to be Dean. I think that's a good point for two reasons: First, Dean is clearly a leader of some subset of the Democratic Party, but he doesn't come close to representing the views of all Democrats. I think he's better in that role, although it's somewhat divisive in terms of the Party as a whole. Second, I think the leader of either party needs to me a moderate, managing kind of person who doesn't try to be the primary political leader of the party. Otherwise, he/she ends up irritating at least some large part of the party, while he ought to be focusing on overarching needs such as fund-raising, party organization, etc.
Dean was quoted as saying "I hate Republicans" recently. He should not be DNC chair, period.
Well, my concern is more along the lines of Dean cutting his own throat with respect to a hypothetical future run for Prez.
Scoop Jackson is, I believe, that last DNC Chair who tried to run for Prez... twice. He didn't survive the Primary season either time.
Reagan took a very different approach after he lost to Ford in 1976. Up until the decision to run for DNC Chair, Dean appeared to me to be working from the Reagan playbook. Which was a good thing since I want him to run again. But, now I don't see that happening. At least not successfully.
A year later, I can say honestly this: Dean fooled me. For 12 years he ran Vermont almost exactly as I would've run it. Many of his programs and initiatives were libertarian and moments of genius. I became arguably his biggest fan. Conditional opposition to the Iraq War sealed my opinion in this regard.
Almost everything I've heard from him since, say, September 1, 2003 has been extremely worrisome. His rhetoric is over the top and hyperbolic. Any ideas that he wants to work with Republicans (as he did in Vermont) are out the window. With all of the sinister and extreme partisanship America has seen in the last 6 or so years, Howard Dean is no antidote.
I gotta be honest, Scott. Most of that bothers me too. I don't talk about it on the blogs except for this post. But, privately I've told Carla my concerns.
We'll see. It looks like Dean's gonna get the DNC slot. Once that's official I guess I'll have to pause and reassess and go from there.
Dean was quoted as saying recently something along the lines of "I am not Joe Trippi's creation." He may not think he is, but there is no resemblance between Dean the Governor of Vermont and the Dean of today. Trippi's June '03 memo about making Dean a "transformational figure" has not lost any influence on Dean himself. He is still, in fact, a creation of Joe Trippi. Considering his current extreme partisanship, that is a bad thing indeed.
I disagree Kevin. While this may be naive of me, I think Dean will not cave in to the DNC. Dean is a man of real conviction. Hell just look at how he called the Bush Admin on their fake terror alerts over the summer. He had the courage to say on national tv that the terror alerts were more then likely "fake". The media jumped all over Dean, and then what did we find out a week later--the info was 3 years old.
Dean reminds me on someone who will lead the DNC in the right direction. I only wish I would have paid more attention to Dean in the primaries. After seeing him call out the Bush Admin. I knew he was the guy I would want to be President.
Tom:
As for your comments about the party needing a "moderate"...I suggest you do some research. Dean is quite moderate. Just because the right-wing hacks claim he is an outrageous left-wing nut, doesn't make it so. You really need to stop watching Fox News.
Disenfranchised - Your arrogance is comical. Telling Tom Carter is stop watching FoxNews? Have you read anything Tom's written? He's one of the fairest, most evenhanded bloggers on the web.
I don't blame anyone for thinking Dean is a wild-eyed lefty for a simple reason: his style and rhetoric are over-the-top, hyperbolic, and actually betray the Dean of old, the Dean who governed Vermont as a centrist. There's nothing "FoxNews" about the "spin" (or rather personal judgments?) on Dean--he is exactly what he is now, unrecognizable from the Dean of 1991-2002. And this is a very sad thing indeed.
Scott, TDV... I think you're both partially correct.
What's getting lost, I think, is the separation between rhetoric and governing style. TDV is indeed correct that the rightwing spin machine has painted Dean as a wild-eyed Lefty. But, his governing record is at stark odds with that portrayal.
Yes, Dean's rhetoric of late has been over-the-top to a degree. But, that's not the way he's painted by FOX et al. They don't distinguish between political rhetoric and the actual record. And God knows politicians are famous for saying one thing and then doing another. In fact, it seems patently obvious to me that the snark about his rhetoric is deliberately designed to obfuscate or otherwise cover up his record as a very centrist politician. The motives for doing that would seem to be self-evident.
TDV is indeed correct that the rightwing spin machine has painted Dean as a wild-eyed Lefty.Kevin, with all due respect, I think you're totally wrong. Anyone who's taken a casual look at Dean through the visual media (CNN, Fox, network and local news) in the last two years could easily come to the conclusion that Dean is wild-eyed and over the top. The conclusion that his style and rhetoric indicate leftism is specious, but that's not what's being discussed here. I am not surprised at all that people like Tom Carter would conclude Dean is not moderate enough for the party because Dean himself is not open about his conservative views. How can the media be blamed when Dean himself is not upfront about his past policies and governance?
Dean has been very upfront about his past policies, it is just that the media tries to portray him as some insane liberal. This is mostly due to the "dribbling down" technique that Fox News uses. Next you'll be telling me that I am too hard on Fox and that they are fair and balanced, Scott.
As for Dean being "over the top" well that is merely your opinion. I don't think he is being over the top when you consider that our country is ruled by proto-fascist government.
And besides I hate republicans too...Anyone that still indentifies themselves as a republican more than likely voted for Bush. These "republicans" don't even know what the Republican party is suppose to stand for, and vote Republican just to drag the party line. These people are disgraces to our founding principals as a nation.
P.S. I hate democrats too, but Dean gives me hope.
Scott,
We both know that the "Dean Scream" was more hype and digital editing that reality. That's just one example of how Dean has been treated by the media. And yes, I certainly can blame them for focusing on the hype when they are in a far better position than I (what with LexisNexus beyond my means...) to track down his actual record. You're letting them off far to easily, IMHO.
I didn't have much trouble figuring out that he has a sterling centrist record. And I jumped on his bandwagon very late in the game... well after the media had painted him as a wild-eyed Lefty. In fact I dismissed him out of hand precisely because of what I'd heard and read from the media. Carla was the one who egged me into looking deeper. I found Dean Independents and the rest is, as they say, history.
That said... I would agree that Dean is at least partially responsible because he's clearly been pandering to non-Centrists. But, let's step back and put that into perspective.
Partisan candidates have long appealed to the more ideological base in primary elections only to swing to the center after securing their party's nomination. So, Dean appealing to the Left side of the Democratic Party makes pragmatic sense to me. He was following a well-honed and highly successful political formula. Had he not faltered during the primary, I've no doubt that it was his intention to swing back to the center with his fine record making that a relatively easy task to pull off, Karl Rove not withstanding. But, he lost out and got stuck in a timewarp of sorts. He had this base of support built up from his Primary election mode. If he swung hard to the center at that point he would have neutralized what little political power he had left. So, he made a pragmatic choice to ride it out and created DFA.
I'm not saying he was right, wrong or somewhere inbetween in his choices. I'm merely pointing out the context which it seems to me you are glossing over.
To wrap it up, I don't agree with either of you, but I've read and respect what you've written. : )
And Kevin, would you please convince your friend TDV of my Dean "creds" before he starts calling me a neo-con? : )
To whom it may concern:
Scott was a co-founder of the now defunct "Dean Independents" blog. Along with the sorely missed Todd and Jule, who rarily posted when I was a reader, those three deserve the lion's share of credit for changing my views on Dean. Prior to that I simply did not question the hype about Dean being uber-Leftist anti-war pacifist. Seriously. My impression of Dean prior to that was that he was somewhere to the Left of your average Pacific Greens Party activist.
Needless to say... since then I have been uber resistant to buying into anti-Dean rhetoric on the basis of the old saw, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
That said... I respect Scott's opinion and views on Dean. Obviously if I didn't have any concerns I wouldn't have wrote the post that started this thread.
I don't think you're a Neo-Con Scott, but I certainly consider Tom one. I just think you're a Neo-Con sympathizer, heh. It appears you think they (the Neo-Cons) have a few good policies whereas I think they have none. Socially authoritarian, Fiscally irresponsible, and authoritarian when it comes to foreign policy--all things I disagree with. I have no love for these people and I--personally--consider them neo-fascists. Thus, I think Dean should be outraged at this time. I think Dean should tone it down a bit in public but he needs to have that fire within to run these bastards out of office.
You're outta your f'n mind.
Well, I consider the majority of the world's population--the people you would call "sane"--as out of their f'n minds. So I honestly take your comment as a complete compliment. Thanks. :)
Why don't you go to Tom Carter's blog and actually read his posts. He's a neo-con? Comical, TDV, a real laugh.
This post has been removed by the author.
I'll do just that. However I have a question for you Scott. Didn't Tom vote for Bush? If he voted for Bush, then Tom is a Neo-Con. Period.
I remember Tom stating that he did vote for Bush, but maybe my memory is mistaken (wouldn't be the first time).
He said it was the first time he'd voted a Republican for President in over 30 years.
Some people (many people) thought John Kerry an awful and repulsive choice for President. I don't blame these people for a second.
I gotta disagree with you there, TDV. Tom's not a NeoCon, IMHO. Nor do I think that everyone who voted for Bush is a NeoCon.
Believe me, I understand your frustration with Bush voters. I share it! But, the reality is that a lot of people voted for the caricature that Rove et al created. A caricature created by NeoCons and their Religious Wrong allies.
It seems to me that the reality about NeoCons is that they are relatively few in actual numbers. But, they make up for their relative lack of numbers by being well-placed within the halls of power of the farce that used to be the GOP.
Ok and if he did indeed say that, then that means he liked Bush's policies so much that he actually made the effort to go out and vote in 2004. Thus only strengthing the case that Tom is a Neo-Con.
And after having a look at Tom's website, he is just as bad as I thought. He actually has a post stating that John Kerry should apologize to the soldiers. The people who should apologize is the Swift Boat peices of shit that spread lies about Kerry.
It is a shame that the John Kerry today isn't the same John Kerry who testified in front of that committee. Now THAT is a man who I would gladly vote for President.
I see what you are saying, and you're probably right Kevin--but then that would mean Bush voters are either Neo-Cons or ill-informed on Bush's policies.
So I guess Tom is just misguided?
We need TDV over at the CC blog, doncha think Kevin? : )
As an aside... TDV, I partially agree with your comment about NeoCons/NeoFascism. I say partially because I don't think the actual NeoCon leaders are fascists. Rather, they use fascistic rhetoric to herd the DittoHeads in the direction they want. But, ideologically I really don't think they buy into their own lies. I suppose I'd call them NeoNeoFascists. And they aren't the only faction of the pseudo-GOP which use fascist rhetoric.
For those who would disagree with the fascist label... Consider this: Demonizing Liberals is a key hallmark of both Fascism and NeoFascism. Look it up if you don't believe me. And yes, I recognize that there is a huge difference between criticizing the ideology/politics of Liberals and demonizing them.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home