Two Thumbs Down for the DNC
I seems that Howard Dean it is for Party Chair. This caps the theory that Democrats are incredibly stupid including the 225 DNC people who have endorsed Dean. As a Democrat, I'm forced to live under such stupidity.
There were two main issues Democrats were unable to close out this election. The first was national security and the other was religious issues. John Kerry did a magnificent job on both. He fought and broke through the stereotype that has plagued Democrats, that we are soft on national security, and he broke through the religion barrier and declared proudly his faith and welcomed pro-lifers and religious types into the Party. With Kerry's run, Democrats had something to build on. Now, all of a sudden we have reversed course and put Howard Dean's face on the party. Dean is soft on national security and is a disaster on religious issues.
This is a guy who calls anyone not on the far left, "Republican-lite." His prescription for the Party is that we should not move to the center but feed "our constiuencies."
I'm with James Carville on this one. We needed six to eight Party bosses in a smoke-filled room who would have selected a Party chair. Now we have to live with a latte-drinking screamer whose favorite New Testament book is Job. Oh, and he thinks Osama bin Laden should get a fair trial. Brilliant move, DNC!
Clearly there is going to be a huge fight for the Party's soul. It is clear that Kerry, Pelosi and Reid wanted a more moderate voice, I think Roemer was their choice. The national Democrats know that loud mouth snarly Dean is a nightmare for the Party. For instance, Bush was in North Dakota a couple days ago to sell his lies on social security. North Dakota is a red state with two Demcoratic senators who returned home to counter the Bush lies. Now a DNC chair would work behind the scenes with them to organize events, publicity, funds, etc to help them get the word out on the truth. A DNC chair would appear on the national networks and provide cover and articulate the Democratic position. Can you imagine what that would be like if it was Dean? Beyond the North East and California, this guy is kryptonite. Come on, Kerry was Progressive Centrist type, who the Democratic liberal left did not like, but he was kryptonite in Colorado, guess what evocations of Howard Dean would do?
In fact all Republican nuts have to do is run ads against Dean and ignore the local matter at hand. Simply identify anything Democrat with Dean and that's it. In fact, all they need do is recycle the "latte-drinking freak show" Club for Growth anti-Dean ad and voila, toast anyone? This is a guy that 75% of the party does not like and 90% of the general public does not like, if this isn't madness on the part of the DNC then I'm willing to be educated on the clinical definition of such a state.
But why is Dean even on the scene? Someone on Matt Yglesias' comment box noted that Dean is doing all this because he is on a Nixonian quest to rehabilitate his image. To which I reply, Yeeeaargh!!!!
posted by Ono at 1:06 PM
4 Comments:
Well said, Ono! Three of the most disconcerting facets of the Dean DNC appointment are the glee is elicits among Republicans, the genuflection before 'bobo' (bourgeois bohemian) Democratic elites, and the neglect of working class and poor people core constituencies.
David Brooks in the New York Times: "Thanks to this newly dominant group, the Democrats are sure to carry Berkeley for decades to come." (Op-Ed, 2.5.05)
Peace, Mike McG...
Hey Mark
Great to hear from you.
Mark was one of the early original Kerryites. Those were the days, it was a nice tight community and then Iowa happened:)
Christmas comes early for Republicans!!! :-)
David B
Greetings!
On the war in Iraq and even on the notion that Osama Bin Laden deserves a fair trial, I'm a hundred percent with Dean.
On your critique of his stupidity when he even tries to reach people of faith, I agree with you. It comes across as fake.
I don't think Kerry did a much better job. I don't say this to judge Kerry's soul, and personally, I believe Kerry is sincere in his faith. Yet, he failed to convince huge numbers of people that he was sincere even if he is.
What you and I think of Kerry's faith is one thing.
What the average voter thought is another - and I'd venture to say that almost nobody voted for Kerry simply because they saw him as the Democratic answer to Bush's appeal to faith.
Many of us voted for Kerry because we hate Bush, and we would have suppoorted Moe from the three stooges if Moe stood a chance of beatin Bush. Kerry did not do as good as could be done. If he had, he would have beat Bush.
On Dean's desire to appeal to the far left, except on abortion, I think he's right. If the Republicans are going to drive a wedge in the center the way Bush-Rove do and make it work for them, I think the best way to respond is to question their fundamental assumptions and give voters a real choice.
Leaving the abortion issue aside (because i am solidly pro-life and support a right to life amendment), I think the Democrats SHOULD have run against Bush a candidate who was consistently against the war in Iraq, completely opposed to the death penalty even for convicted terrorists, a tree hugging environmentalist who is pro-union, pro-social security, pro-universal health care, pro-United Nations, pro-affirmative action, pro-gun control, etc....
The problem is that the elusive center is inconsistent and even wrong on some issues, AND you can't beat an incumbent when you message is "He's a screw up, but I support all of his policies. I'll just implament those policies better."
Nobody wants to take a chance on an unknown if he isn't offering a different vision.
You need to come out swinging harder and say "He's a screw up not only in his failure to carry out his own agenda, but his agenda is fundamentally wrong for America. I have an alternate vision for America that is far better than anything my opponent has to offer, and I have the leadership skills to see my agenda through to the end."
The center was wrong to believe that the war in Iraq was justified, which is what most Americans believed in March 2003. I opposed the war before it began - as did Dean.
As a registered Republican, Dean and Kucinich were the Democrats I was paying attention to. As far as I was concerned, they were the two offering a different vision.
Kerry got my vote anyway, but only because I hate Bush's policies so much - especially this immoral and unjust war that is massacering innocent people in the thousands. In the end, I think Kerry's position on the war was better than Bush's, but not perfect - but it Dean and Kucinich who were not only better - they were RIGHT!
And the whole Democratic party had really shifted to saying the war was mistake by the time November came around, including Kerry. People may not have seen it early on, but Dean and Kucinich were saying what Kerry and all the Democrats SHOULD have said much earlier.
Deans scream didn't bug me either.
Indeed, the only things that really bugged me about Dean were his stance on abortion and the way he spoke about religion.
Peace!
Post a Comment
<< Home