Saturday, December 27, 2003
If the people lead, the leaders will follow
Here's the headline in WaPo:
Let's watch MW Dan Balz as he goes to work!
Right, Dan. Because the MW's never asked Bush any questions in 2000. Nothing about his desertion from the National Guard, nothing about torturing small animals, nothing about Harken, nothing about the Ranger land deal, nothing about his policies... Too busy clowning about Gore, I guess.
It's a nice lede, though—if you don't recognize it for the crock it is.
Right. And where and why did Dean find those resources, Dan? Under a cabbage leaf? The knock on Dean is that he appeals to Democratic activists only, but the numbers show he's also bringing in people who have never been involved in politics before (and if he can do that with Latinos, the Dems can write off the old Confederacy.)
Right. Who's repudiating the Big Dog? Not Dean. He'd ask Clinton to be his ambassador to the middle East; and he may have a chance to put across the universal health care that Hillary couldn't. So what's the problem here?
The real issue is that the party establishment blew it. Worse, they know it, but they won't admit it. Gutless, feckless Beltway Dems, they blew it. They blew it on homeland security; had the solution, and let Bush steal their clothes on the DHS. They blew it on education, as "No Child Left Behind" sets the public schools up for failure to bring in vouchers. They blew it in on the war, where even Kerry admits that though he was lied to, he trusted Bush at the time (after a stolen election, they trusted Bush?) They blew it on the mid-term, where the country rightly concluded that a party that couldn't defend itself against Bush couldn't be trusted to defend the country. Then they blew it on Medicare, by somehow managing to lose the AARP. They blew it on the energy bill. And they're going to blow it on overtime when Congress reconvenes. So in time-honored DC fashion, they're shooting the messenger.
Dean isn't repudiating Clinton's policies. He's saying new tactics are needed. Triangulation doesn't work anymore (see above) because the Republicans, having achieved a level of discipline appropriate to a parliamentary democracy, have no incentive to give Democrats anything (see above). Unfortunately, playing these tactics is what funds the Beltway Dems—making Dean's new model of Internet funding all the more threatening to them. Dean's record as a pragmatic centrist in Vermont ought to be music to these guy's ears; it's really Dean's funding and organization that threatens them, since it renders (what little) power they have even less relevant.
RIght. And the view of the activists would be wrong, why? C'mon, Dan, I thought this was an analysis piece, not a not-for-attribution grab-bag of quotes!
Dan, any Presidential candidate who isn't angry isn't paying attention and doesn't have the temperament to be President. As for tired and toothless Al "Dog in the Manger" From, one hardly knows where to begin. How about universal health care as a policy? Sweet Jeebus, Al, this "anger" thing is a Republican meme, not a Democratic one!
As with so many of the anti-Dean screeds, you have to get to the last graf to see signs of rationality (the TNR's "Beyond Belief" piece is an example of this). Here it is:
Damn right!
Dan, where's the analysis? DId you just phone this one in? Anyone can string together some random quotes! Is Dean a modernizer and an innovator? Why finish just when you should start? Too much like work?
UPDATE: Meanwhile, the editorial page keeps the anti-Dean drumbeat pounding:
Yawn. I bet. Like Dean tortured small animals as a child, or lied his way into a war as an adult? What kind of character is the Post looking for, anyhow? Puh-leeze ...
Questions swirl around Dean
Let's watch MW Dan Balz as he goes to work!
Rarely has a front-runner begun an election year with as many questions swirling around him as [Dean,] the man who rewrote the rules in presidential politics the past 12 months.
Right, Dan. Because the MW's never asked Bush any questions in 2000. Nothing about his desertion from the National Guard, nothing about torturing small animals, nothing about Harken, nothing about the Ranger land deal, nothing about his policies... Too busy clowning about Gore, I guess.
It's a nice lede, though—if you don't recognize it for the crock it is.
Up to now, Dean has benefited from a divided field. As he has surged, his rivals have struggled for attention and money. The compressed primary-caucus calendar, designed by Democratic Party leaders to deliver an early nominee to leave plenty of time for the Democrats to prepare for the November general election, gives Dean an advantage, considering his superior financial esources.
Right. And where and why did Dean find those resources, Dan? Under a cabbage leaf? The knock on Dean is that he appeals to Democratic activists only, but the numbers show he's also bringing in people who have never been involved in politics before (and if he can do that with Latinos, the Dems can write off the old Confederacy.)
Although doubts about Dean have been loudest here [DC], there is general agreement that the party establishment is not capable of mounting a stop-Dean movement. "What establishment?" one Democrat said sarcastically. "The only thing that could have an impact is if Bill Clinton came out and said, I don't appreciate a repudiation of my administration.
Right. Who's repudiating the Big Dog? Not Dean. He'd ask Clinton to be his ambassador to the middle East; and he may have a chance to put across the universal health care that Hillary couldn't. So what's the problem here?
The real issue is that the party establishment blew it. Worse, they know it, but they won't admit it. Gutless, feckless Beltway Dems, they blew it. They blew it on homeland security; had the solution, and let Bush steal their clothes on the DHS. They blew it on education, as "No Child Left Behind" sets the public schools up for failure to bring in vouchers. They blew it in on the war, where even Kerry admits that though he was lied to, he trusted Bush at the time (after a stolen election, they trusted Bush?) They blew it on the mid-term, where the country rightly concluded that a party that couldn't defend itself against Bush couldn't be trusted to defend the country. Then they blew it on Medicare, by somehow managing to lose the AARP. They blew it on the energy bill. And they're going to blow it on overtime when Congress reconvenes. So in time-honored DC fashion, they're shooting the messenger.
Dean isn't repudiating Clinton's policies. He's saying new tactics are needed. Triangulation doesn't work anymore (see above) because the Republicans, having achieved a level of discipline appropriate to a parliamentary democracy, have no incentive to give Democrats anything (see above). Unfortunately, playing these tactics is what funds the Beltway Dems—making Dean's new model of Internet funding all the more threatening to them. Dean's record as a pragmatic centrist in Vermont ought to be music to these guy's ears; it's really Dean's funding and organization that threatens them, since it renders (what little) power they have even less relevant.
"Democratic Party activists, whatever their ideological perspective, have a view that their leaders have been completely ineffective in combating President Bush," one Democratic strategist said. "The leaders have a view that either they're doing the best they can or that more clever centrism is better or they need someone with a military background at the head of the party."
RIght. And the view of the activists would be wrong, why? C'mon, Dan, I thought this was an analysis piece, not a not-for-attribution grab-bag of quotes!
Al From, who heads the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, credited Dean with running a successful campaign but questioned whether he can effectively lead the party as nominee. "We need to lay out a reason to replace Bush," From said. "We can't just depend on the fact that the activists in our party are angry at him and like Dean. There aren't enough of them."
Dan, any Presidential candidate who isn't angry isn't paying attention and doesn't have the temperament to be President. As for tired and toothless Al "Dog in the Manger" From, one hardly knows where to begin. How about universal health care as a policy? Sweet Jeebus, Al, this "anger" thing is a Republican meme, not a Democratic one!
As with so many of the anti-Dean screeds, you have to get to the last graf to see signs of rationality (the TNR's "Beyond Belief" piece is an example of this). Here it is:
But another centrist leader, Simon B. Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, said party leaders here should recognize what Dean has done. "The Washington party is a failed party, and Dean's criticism of the Washington party is incredibly accurate," he said. "We're completely out of power and heading for permanent minority status if we don't start modernizing the party. Dean has been a modernizer and innovator, and should be embraced for it. Instead he's being attacked for doing it differently."
Damn right!
Dan, where's the analysis? DId you just phone this one in? Anyone can string together some random quotes! Is Dean a modernizer and an innovator? Why finish just when you should start? Too much like work?
UPDATE: Meanwhile, the editorial page keeps the anti-Dean drumbeat pounding:
Yet we are troubled by aspects of Mr. Dean's character and personality. ...
Yawn. I bet. Like Dean tortured small animals as a child, or lied his way into a war as an adult? What kind of character is the Post looking for, anyhow? Puh-leeze ...
