Why I'm for Dean
by William Greider
'The Nation', Nov. 26, 2003
"First, the rivals saw him as a McGovernite lefty from the 1960s. When that didn't take,
they decided to depict him as a right-wing clone of Newt Gingrich who wants to dismantle
Medicare and Social Security. Finally, opponents sold political reporters on the story
of Mr. Malaprop, an oddball from tiny, liberal Vermont so insensitive to the nuances of
American politics his mouth will destroy him. Howard Dean surged ahead through all
this. The other candidates and witting collaborators in the press got him wrong every time.
Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic
Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school--a shrewd, intuitive
pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely
to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach
--leading, it's called--seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and
focus groups, the data interpreted for politicians by expensive consultants. The press
corps has not had much experience with Democrats of this type, so reporters read Dean's
style as emotional, possibly a character flaw..."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031215&s=greider
Molly Ivins: "... folks, I think we have a winner here.
Molly Ivins: Picking a winner
By MOLLY IVINS, Creators Syndicate
December 4, 2003
AUSTIN, Texas -- No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win.
It is the bounden duty of bleeding-heart liberals like myself to make our political choices based on purity of heart, nobility of character, depth of compassion, sterling integrity and generosity of spirit. The concept of actually winning a political race does not, traditionally, influence the bleeding heart liberal one iota -- certainly not in the primaries.
Over the years, I have proudly voted for a list of losers only a lily-pure liberal could love. I am rather surprised not to find myself in the camp of the Noble Dennis Kucinich this year. (And believe me, there are supporters of the Noble Dennis who are plenty upset about it, too.) In fact, I initially passed on Dean precisely because he looked like one of my usual losers -- 2 percent in the polls and the full weight of Vermont behind him ... wow, my kind of guy.
Having concluded that this was the year to Be Sensible, look for a winner, find a moderate, and all that good stuff the expert political players do, I carefully studied the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom -- the avatar of all political knowledge, the Washington, D.C., press corps -- said John Kerry was the man. So despite his resemblance to the finer products of the taxidermist's art, I sat around waiting for him to show signs of life. And waited.
Next, I consulted my buddies in the union movement, and they said Dick Gephardt was the man. I always like a labor liberal, and Gephardt's eyebrows have improved. I was hopeful for while, but concluded, as many do, that while Gephardt is Perfectly Good as a Democratic candidate, he ain't settin' the world on fire. Doesn't seem like a good year for a regular politician on account of we ain't lookin' at regular politics. These Republicans do not have a different strategy -- they are playing a different game. They don't want to govern, they want to rule.
Next, my lawyer friends recommended John Edwards, and even though my first impression was, "Too pretty, too light," I liked him better as time went on. Good strong populist streak to him, some good economic ideas, goes right after Bush on the economy. But conventional wisdom decided he is too young and untried.
Then along came Gen. Wesley Clark, and lots of people were excited. But I never have thought anyone should start in politics at the top. All those rich guys who run for office want to start at governor or senator, instead of running for the school board. Arnold Schwarzenegger aside, it's really not as easy as it looks.
Meanwhile, there's old Dean, causin' excitement. I went up to Vermont and talked to a bunch of liberals there. They all said Howard Dean is no liberal. Funny, that's what Howard Dean says, too. And indeed, he isn't, but in politics, everything's relative. The conventional wisdom first dismissed Howard Dean (the man has never been to a Washington dinner party!), then condescended to him, then graciously offered him instruction on how he should be running his campaign -- which seemed to be going along quite well without their input.
I talked to some big money guys who assured me Dean Can't Win. But of course I'm noticing this interesting thing: Dean has so much money he actually turned down public campaign financing (since I'm a card-carrying liberal, I was naturally deeply unhappy over this. But since Dean's money comes from Real People instead of corporate special interests, I'm not that unhappy.) Let me second the notion that this year, the Internet is to politics what television was in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race.
For a while, I fretted over Dean being angry, or at least appealing to the political anger that is normally manipulated by right-wing radio jocks. Anger makes liberals uncomfortable: We prefer peace, reason and gentle persuasion. Beloveds, it is way past time for us to get mad -- social, economic and political justice are being perverted by the Bush administration.
Dean gives a hell of a speech -- even if you're Republican, you should go and hear him just for the experience. But I fretted about Dean on TV -- TV is so important. How could anyone poker up on Margaret Carlson of PBS, not one of the world's toughest interviewers? But then I saw Dean laugh his way through a Chris Matthews interview (which he should have done with Tim Russert, who was hell-bent on gotcha questions), and I know the guy can take care of himself. So he fights back if you get in his face -- that's not all bad.
I know, he's even less of a liberal than Bill Clinton was, but I don't think Dean is a moderate centrist. I think he's a fighting centrist. And folks, I think we have got ourselves a winner here.
By the way:
A new ARG poll of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire finds Howard Dean increasing his lead (November 20 results in parentheses):
Dean 45 (38)
Undecided 15 (21)
Kerry 13 (17)
Clark 11 (7)
Gephardt 5 (4)
Lieberman 5 (5)
Edwards 3 (4)
Yes,
latest Zogby poll (released yesterday) has Dean leading Kerry by 42% against 12% in New Hampshire, with Clark at 9% and Lieberman at 7%. That's the best Dean done there, and the worst Kerry's done.
In fact, 'ccording to the
Zogby poll on Iowa the day before, Dean's back in the lead there, too: 26% against 22% for Gephardt, 9% for Kerry and 5% for Edwards. Again, the best Dean's done there yet.
Meanwhile, the
Boston Globe and
TNR have a good question for Howard Dean.
Dean said he had to opt out of public financing because that was the only way he could ever stand a chance against Bush with his limitless resources. Fine. So if that was the rationale for opting out, then Dean will surely - being, as he maintains, still very much committed to public financing as a matter of heartfelt principle - stick to the spending limits as long as its still primary season, and Bush isnt his opponent yet?
After all, none of his primary opponents was opting to spend more than the state-by-state ceilings determined by the public financing system, so why would he be the one to bust that equal-opportunities system?
Well, if you look at Dean's current campaign spending - not against Bush but against Gephardt - the answer to that first question is nevertheless, apparently, very much "no".
As for why not, he hasn't really come up with a coherent answer on that one yet himself. There is one - it's just not very flattering.
Boston Globe wrote:Dean having deftly ducked the question during the show itself, it seemed worthwhile to ask it again afterward. So: Given that his rationale for rejecting public financing is that he will need to spend more heavily to beat George Bush, why does he have to reject the primary spending limits as well?
TNR wrote:Dean didn't answer the question. Ignoring the state spending limits in the primary process has nothing to do with Bush. If Dean were being honest, he would have answered: Actually, I abandoned the system not because we could afford it but because, before I can beat Bush, I need to beat Gephardt and Edwards in Iowa and Wes Clark in New Hampshire.
Dean has to spend big time to hope to win. That's reality. Until the system for electing the president changes, I back his getting and spending without limit, so long as it does not turn voters against him in the process.
edgarblythe wrote:Dean has to spend big time to hope to win. That's reality.
Eh. As argument in the campaign spending race against Bush that makes sense. Ya gotta join the game in order to beat him in it.
But to use the money that he's now free to raise, thanks to an appeal to that very logic, in the race against fellow-Democrats who have much
less - not more - money to spend than him is a bit hipocrytical, no?
He's no David against Goliath in these primaries - if anything, he's the Goliath. If he's so committed to the principles of public finance, why doesnt he stick to its rules when it comes to primary spending against fellow-candidates who have even less money - and save all the extra cash he's raising for when he
does face the Rich Bad Man? Otherwise he's just playing the Bush role within the primaries.
nimh wrote:
But to use the money that he's now free to raise, thanks to an appeal to that very logic, in the race against fellow-Democrats who have much less - not more - money to spend than him is a bit hipocrytical, no?
He's no David against Goliath in these primaries - if anything, he's the Goliath. If he's so committed to the principles of public finance, why doesnt he stick to its rules when it comes to primary spending against fellow-candidates who have even less money - and save all the extra cash he's raising for when he does face the Rich Bad Man? Otherwise he's just playing the Bush role within the primaries.
Bush: $170,000,000
largely in $2000 increments from corporate fat-cats, lobbyists and the economic elite.
Dean: +/- $35,000,000
mostly in increments of $25, $50, $100 from hundreds of thousands of average Americans
I'd say that Dean's is another form of 'Public' financing.
Dean a Goliath? No. It is we, his supporters, a legion of 'Davids' that collectively seem Goliath-like.
jjorge*197982* wrote:Bush: $170,000,000
largely in $2000 increments from corporate fat-cats, lobbyists and the economic elite.
Dean: +/- $35,000,000
mostly in increments of $25, $50, $100 from hundreds of thousands of average Americans
Eh. I'm not contesting that bit. To fight Bush you gotta skip spending limits, alas - so be it.
But you're
not fighting Bush as of yet. You're fighting Gephardt, and Edwards, and Lieberman. Who each and all
do, thus far, stick to the public financing system and its state-by-state spending caps.
Whats the Dean excuse for blowing off the spending caps on his campaign and going at Gephardt c.s. with all the money he's got - i.e., much more than any of the rest of them Dems has - while still professing how, "at heart", he is a firm believer in the public financing system, as a question of principle? How d'ya reconcile that?
Dean hasn't even tried, it seems - the only argument his spokespersons gave those journalists is that, well, Kerry did away with spending caps too, so Dean just
has to, as well - except that Kerry
didnt do that until after Dean said he would - it was Dean who started, here.
Again, neither I nor those journalists are contesting that his choice was a right one concerning the fight against Bush - but what excuse for rejecting the
primary spending limits as well?
The "Bush does it, so we have to, too" answer is obviously a bit of a flake here, cause its not the fight against Bush he's spending his money on right now - it's the fight against Gephardt.
See, thats where my problem is. Freeing yourself to spend more money against Gephardt c.s. than they can ever raise - and still calling yourself the David of the race - thats way too tricky for my taste. Dean still looks like the best pick to me - but this dont boost my opinion of him, lets put it that way.
You have to make sure you win first before all else, or you're dead in the water. I would pull out all the stops if I were a candidate.
But then what was the whole McCain/Feingold exercise for?
Already, it is pretty damn nigh impossible to get anywhere in the race if you're not very rich yourself (like Perot) or have some really rich friends. I'll admit the Dean campaign is a hopeful example that 'People power' can still achieve something. But why not strive for some kind of mutually agreed caps, that allow the race to remain open to those without ultra-deep pockets as well on a more permanent basis?
Isnt that a necessary step to save us from an oligarchic brand of democracy?
And again, if Dean agrees with that like he says, why not act accordingly at least in that part of the race where everyone else does, too?
Until the law changes and gets enforced money is the paving for the road to the White House. I don't make the rules, but anyone foolish enough to wait for fair play will get swept under in a hurry.
edgarblythe wrote:Until the law changes and gets enforced money is the paving for the road to the White House. I don't make the rules, but anyone foolish enough to wait for fair play will get swept under in a hurry.
Yeh - sorry for getting impatient and pushing on about this here - but we're talking the
primaries here. And in these Democratic primaries, the only candidate who's using his headstart in the money league, doing away with fair play notions, to sweep under his competitors is
Dean.
The others
were heeding the fair play rules. Here was
not a game already perverted, so Dean "just had to adapt in order to win". Here was Dean, alone and as the first, deciding to sweep aside the fair play rules.
In general, you're right, of course, but you're giving the answer to question B where I'm asking question A. You're explaining why, to win the White House race when it's so perverted by boundless money drives, Dean has to adapt to the way it goes, too, instead of being principled at the cost of losing all chance of winning the presidency. Fine. But why reject
the primary spending limits as well?
If he'd stuck with them, everyone else would have, too - if only because, except for Kerry, they have no chance of raising much beyond them anyway - so it is
not as if he'd been setting himself up as some naive victim of more devious parties. He would just have been sticking to the level playing field all the candidates had agreed on.
nimh wrote:jjorge*197982* wrote:Bush: $170,000,000
largely in $2000 increments from corporate fat-cats, lobbyists and the economic elite.
Dean: +/- $35,000,000
mostly in increments of $25, $50, $100 from hundreds of thousands of average Americans
Eh. I'm not contesting that bit. To fight Bush you gotta skip spending limits, alas - so be it.
But you're
not fighting Bush as of yet. You're fighting Gephardt, and Edwards, and Lieberman...
...The "Bush does it, so we have to, too" answer is obviously a bit of a flake here, cause its not the fight against Bush he's spending his money on right now - it's the fight against Gephardt...
nimh, consider this:
Press Release, Statement from Trippi on Special Interest Attack Ad
BURLINGTON--Dean for America today announced that it was launching an ad campaign in response to renewed attacks by Republicans. Today, the Republican-backed group Club for Growth said that it would begin airing ads attacking Governor Dean's record on taxes. This is the first known ad by a Republican group attacking a Democratic candidate by name.
"It's obvious that the general election is already underway, and that the Republicans are beginning to understand that the greatest grassroots campaign in modern politics poses a serious threat to their special interest friends.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE LAUNCHED ATTACKS ON GOVERNOR DEAN IN THE LAST TEN DAYS* --first the RNC put up an attack ad, then Ed Gillespie came to Vermont to attack Dean, and now they're having third parties launch negative ads too," Campaign Manager Joe Trippi said.
(from the Dean blog Thursday 12-4-03)
http://www.blogforamerica.com/
*caps/emphasis are mine. -jjorge
jjorge*197982* wrote:THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE LAUNCHED ATTACKS ON GOVERNOR DEAN IN THE LAST TEN DAYS*
Dean has been blasting away at GWB in his speeches and ads for months now, jjorge. Two ads and a speech from the Republicans returning fire does not a sudden argument for emergency resort make.
nimh
We disagree. The Bush forces have inserted themselves into the democratic primary with blistering attack ads on Dean.
In Houston an unknown businessman (Democrat) spent his way from obscurity to overtake the two leaders and won by a landslide. In great part it was because he spent big early when the public was getting a first good look at the candidates, not in the home stretch.
Ames Tribune reports on Dean's lead in Iowa:
According to a poll conducted by Iowa State University, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean leads among people who "definitely" or "probably" will attend the Jan. 19 caucuses.
Dean was the first choice for 28.5 percent of those people, followed by Rep. Richard Gephardt, who had 20.9 percent. Sen. John Kerry placed third with 15.3 percent. [...]
"What actually counts is people who show up," said Robert Lowry, an associate professor of political science who contributed to the study.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10623917&BRD=2035&PAG=461&dept_id=238101&rfi=6
"Restoring the American Community"
The following remarks as prepared were delivered Sunday, December 07, 2003 by Governor Howard Dean in Columbia, South Carolina:
"In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way -- by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people. They called it the "Southern Strategy," and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like "racial quotas" and "welfare queens" to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America's problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their
campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us. But these politics do worse than that -- they fracture the very soul of who we are as a country...."
For the whole address go to:
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002565.html
