HOWARD DEAN AND THE TEMPTING OF THE DEMOCRATS.

[mcd1982]

Thoughts???

-----------

A critical perspective from Jonathan Chait of the New Republic
explaining concerns that many have with Dean's candidacy.

HOWARD DEAN AND THE TEMPTING OF THE DEMOCRATS.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030728&s=chait072803
Bitter Pill
by Jonathan Chait

Post date: 07.21.03
Issue date: 07.28.03

Presumably, Karl Rove had no reason to believe his views would wind
up in the press when he attended a Washington, D.C., Fourth of July
parade as a spectator earlier this month. But, as a dozen supporters
of Vermont Governor Howard Dean marched by, an environmental
consultant named Daniel J. Weiss happened to overhear what Rove told
a companion and relayed the powerful Bush adviser's commentary to The
Washington Post. According to Weiss, Rove said, "Heh, heh, heh. Yeah,
that's the one we want," and then cheered on the Dean marchers: "Come
on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!"

Rove is not the only Bush loyalist cackling with joy at Dean's rise
from long-shot to spoiler to top-tier candidate. In recent weeks, The
Wall Street Journal editorial page, The Weekly Standard, and National
Review Online--none of which have the best interests of the
Democratic Party at heart--have all published articles gloating over
the prospects of a Dean candidacy. ("Bring on Deano," urged a piece
by the Standard's Fred Barnes.) Of course, the collective political
judgment of the conservative movement is not infallible. There may
even be times when Rove himself misjudges President Bush's political
interest. This, however, is not one of those times.

The glee Dean inspires among Republicans is exceeded only by that of
his supporters. He has attracted a cultlike following, similar to
that of John McCain or Ross Perot, although it is largely confined to
liberals. Dean is soaring mainly because he has tapped into the
intense anger Democrats feel toward Bush. But, in this case, anger
has gotten the better of reason. Democrats' justified desperation to
unseat Bush may, paradoxically, render them less able to do so. The
trouble is not Dean himself (he is a decent man) nor even necessarily
how he might govern (more responsibly than some would think). It's
that he has come to represent a political delusion: that on every
issue Democrats have a moral and strategic obligation to oppose Bush
diametrically. This delusion could enfeeble the Democratic Party in
2004, whether or not it makes Dean its nominee.

The heart of Dean's appeal is his audacious claim that he, alone, has
the guts to criticize Bush. "I think that, for too long, Democrats
have been afraid to take on the president," he told National Public
Radio in March. "The only hope Democrats have to beat this
president," he told a Los Angeles rally earlier this month, "is to
behave like Democrats and stand up for what we believe." Liberals not
only find this talk cathartic, they believe it holds the key to
victory. As actor Alec Baldwin told a Newsweek reporter, "I want to
know who's the person who's going to take it to Bush. We've got to
get rid of this guy."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Carrion]

1. Here's a thought

Be careful what you wish for, Mister Rove. You just might get more than you bargained for.

The military issues can be neated dismissed by putting someone like Wes Clark second on the ticket.

[dajabr]

2. My first thought...

Is that you might want to check the DU rules about posting copyrighted material.

My second, is that you should link the positive view counter-piece that accompanied this one in the same issue.

[polpilot]

9. Old news. Dean rules. Rove is a moron compard to Dean's abiltities/

campaign.

Dean '04

[Shrub Wacker]

20. Do NOT

underestimate the cunning and determination of Karl Rove and his band of cronies. Calling him a moron is the wrong approach because he is far from it. He is an idealouge and a maniacal figure but no moron. It takes the right candidate and the right message to get these bums out of power. but do not underestimate the depths to which they will sink, they have already circumvented the electoral process once.

[chimpymustgo]

21. And it's a good idea to listen to voices outside your group.

I thought it was an excellent article, but it was just dismissed by Dean supporters. That's one way to deal with a problem, I suppose.

[poskonig]

22. Rove *is* a moron.

Look how they lost the spin on the uranium issue? It is just like the DUI story that broke out before the election.

[blm]

23. That DUI story worked to their advantage...

because just a few hours earlier, Kerrey and Inouye spoke to some reporters about Bush missing his National Guard duty. Rove PREFERRED the DUI story.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chaumont58]

8. I agree with you.....

I don't see the point to what Clinton did last night. The repukes would never have done that for him. I don't think he is stupid, but
it sure as shit looks like a stupid act. The only winners I see from what he said, are the pink tutu Senate Democrats. That is kind of the best case answer. The worse case is that he thinks it was all right to invade and occupy a sovereign nation for trumped up reasons. The repukes will use his comments, against Democrats next year. Stupid.
As far as any article in the New Republic, I think the owner, publisher will back any act, how ever detrimental to US interests, regardless of how many American lives are lost, if he thinks it will benefit Israel. Fuck the New Republic, the horse they rode in on, and all who follow that flag.

[J B]

4. That disappointment isn't gonna be Dean's fault.

Was gonna happen no matter who wins.

I laugh at this idea that Kerry is electable, but the problem is, there is an easy way for Democrats to solve their national security "problem": get Bush elected to a second term. Then all we sheep will be safe, won't we. They can't out-Bush Bush, so why discourage voters from voting for a "real leader"? Clinton isn't. All Presidents make mistakes, he said. Isn't that reassuring.

[Rose Siding]

5. I'd seen this and enjoyed

an extensive commentary I ran across:

here's a snip>

"It’s a bit odd to begin an article about Dean, written supposedly from a Democrat’s perspective, by quoting the right wing media. Why should we given any credence to what they say about anything? These are, after all, the people who still claim that the U.S. is going to find weapons in Iraq, who believe that defunding the federal government via massive tax cuts for the rich is good for the economy, and who say with a straight face that Bush is a man of integrity and intelligence."

more.................


http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Anti_Dean_TNR_July_28_2003.htm

[chimpymustgo]

6. Ignore this at your/our peril. That was thoughtul, reasoned and right.

The author made well-reasoned arguments, and backed them up with facts. Please post in General Discussion - I'd like to read some more widespread reaction.

[dsc]

10. Sorry this is a hit piece

to take one example. He characterizes Dean's position on guns as being nothing but politically expedient. He has a career of at least 11 years and presumedly more like 25 years of having the very same position. I don't agree with his position on guns, neither does Chait I take it. But to characterize it as being both politically expedient and unexplained is just lying. He has explained his position very well. It is both clear and consistent. Mr Chait is ignorant if he doesn't know that or a liar if he does and wrote what he wrote.

[pmbryant]

7. Copyright rule violation

Dear mcd1982,

Please only excerpt 3-5 paragraphs of any article posted here. If it is less than an hour since you posted, you can still edit your post to include only the proper amount of the article. Otherwise, Admin will have to edit your post for you.

Here are the relevant DU rules on copyright.

Thanks,
pmbryant
DU Moderator

[LiberalTexan]

11. Reverse psychology

Amazing this is STILL all they have to work with.

[chimpymustgo]

12. This piece is one of the best pieces of political analysis I've seen.

Please don't just dismiss it. Even if you love Howard Dean, please open your mind to what MOST people see as a candidate having absolutely so chance in a General Election.

It's not just spite. It's mature political analysis. Listen, I support a candidate who needs a certain set of circumstances to concur in order for him to win the nomination. I understand that. I wish Dean supporters would see that outside this little hothouse called DU, Dean does not have the kind of support that it will take to get the nomination.

This is a vast country, that spreads far beyond the Internet, college campuses, and chic coffee shops.

Dean would be a disaster in the General. And if by some miracle he got the nomination - he's pissed off every other campaign - he's not going to be able to fire up the rest of the folks.

IMO - Edwards, Kerry, Graham can take us all the way. Dean - not a chance.

Can you just read the article and in a non-Freeperlike way - GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT?

[dsc]

13. I did

came up with one example, out of several I could have, of Chait playing fast and loose with the facts. You chose to ignore it and pretend none of us read it. Surprising? no. Fair? no.

[chimpymustgo]

14. What facts "fast and loose"??

Please, I would love to know to completely assess the story. I thought it was well-researched and grounded. Share what you know, please.

[dsc]

15. Please read post 10

it was in response to a poster named Chimpymustgo.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Okey dokey. I see a lot of Kool-aid has been consumed.

Wish you all the best.

[dsc]

18. Did he or did he not write

That Dean hasn't explained the morality of his gun position? You see I did read the piece. He also wrote, falsely, that the Democrats were in the Senate minority for 01 and 02. That is, as we all know, false. Mr. Chait, doesn't like Dean. But he also wrote a sloppy hit piece. Sorry, but if a man who has risen to be editor of one of the premier political magazines in this country can't remember who is in charge of the Senate that is pretty bad.

[dajabr]

17. Only if you read the companion piece...

In a "Non-freeper" like way. But I'm not holding my breath...

"WHY THE CRITICS STILL DON'T GET HOWARD DEAN."

When the history of this presidential campaign is written, one of the best chapters will be about how Howard Dean beat Tim Russert....He had amassed an army of supporters, thousands strong, who frankly didn't care what Russert thought. Donations to Dean's website actually increased after the show, and, on the very next Tuesday, more than 30,000 people participated in Dean's formal announcement ceremony--most of them scattered across the country in simultaneous meetings arranged via the Internet. A few days later, Dean stunned the political universe by announcing he had already raised more than $6 million during the second quarter of 2003, more than any other candidate. That produced yet another spike in donations--this time, an astonishing $800,000 in one day....

Dwelling on Dean's political liabilities tends to obscure another important consideration--his considerable political assets, starting with his unique ability to eliminate, or at least mitigate, President Bush's huge fund-raising advantages. Under the old campaign finance system, Democrats largely ignored mass fund-raising, figuring the best way to stay competitive was to concentrate on large donations from wealthy financiers. Since those donations are now illegal--thanks to the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms--Democrats will need to rediscover mass fund-raising just to stay remotely competitive. Dean, of course, is the only candidate doing that already. And it's easy to see how he could parlay the contributions he has received from his existing donor base into much more money. Because he's drawing from many donors--some 80,000 at last count--each giving small amounts of money well below the legal threshold for individual donations, he's free to approach them again for more during the primaries or the general election....

The former Vermont governor has certainly earned the right to prove he's up to the job . After all, he has spent his entire career--and most of the last few months--disproving those who underestimated him. There's no reason to believe he'll stop now.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=cohn072803

[Egnever]

19. My thoughts?

Well All I can say is the more I read from these talking heads the more I realize they dont know what the hell they are talking about.

From what I read of this article this guy has no clue what deans positions are other than hes against anything bush is for. Wich of course is just plain rediculous.

The great thing about Dean is, He defines his own positions! The fact that he happens to think bush is an idiot most of the time is just a coincidence.