POLITICS Is the White House starting to worry about Democrat Dean?

[VermontDem2004]

WASHINGTON
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh asked a simple question, but the answer is not simple. At a meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, Bayh asked fellow Democrats, "Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?"

Bayh was responding to the ascent of Vermont's former governor, Howard Dean, at the moment, to the status of front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Dean's face was on the covers of ((ITAL))Newsweek((ITAL)) and ((ITAL))Time((ITAL)), and one of Dean's rivals, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had described Dean as "a ticket to nowhere."

Dean, who believes that extremism in denunciation of President George W. Bush and all his works is no vice, has made himself the vehicle for venting by Democratic activists. They comprise the big bleeding liberal heart of the party's nominating electorate, whose detestation of Bush is a witch's brew of revulsion and condescension.

Its three main ingredients are lingering resentment about Florida (they believe the U.S. Supreme Court should not have settled the 2000 election), fury about Bush policies from tax cuts to war and, most important, a visceral, almost aesthetic recoil from Bush's persona - his Texasness, the way he walks, the way he talks. They would not like the way he wears his hat or sips his tea, if he did such things.

When Barry Goldwater decided to go into politics, he said, "It ain't for life, and it might be fun." Politics is supposed to be fun, and it is fun for activists. That is one reason why they are active. Venting - the catharsis of letting off steam - is part of the fun, and is one function of politics.

But only one. A party is dysfunctional when dominated by people for whom venting is the primary point of politics. That can happen when there is an intraparty vendetta. In 1964, Goldwater Republicans disliked President Lyndon Johnson, but they really disliked Nelson Rockefeller Republicans. Goldwaterites wanted to win, but not as much as they wanted to settle scores.
Dean Democrats are not like that. However much they fault his rivals, their target is Bush. So the answer to Bayh's question is: They want to govern.

more
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/Columnists.nsf/George+Will/333B3B3AAD60AE2386256D7D0037D92E?OpenDocument&Headline=POLITICS+Is+the+White+House+starting+to+worry+about+Democrat+Dean%3F

[Cha]

1. Extremely bad governing calls for extreme criticizism!

Too bad the likes of evan baha doesn't get it.

[tjdee]

2. Evan Bayh's wife was Dean's 'surrogate wife' while he was governor...

(going to functions with him as he was head of the National Governor's Association or whatever it was)

Does anyone have the direct link to Bayh's comments to the DLC?

I find it interesting that Bayh has turned on him like this--if indeed his comments were directed specifically at Dean.

I'm sure someone will characterize this post as bashing Dean, or Bayh, or both.

[Cha]

5. So what if his wife went to functions with Dean while Dean served

as President of the National Govenor's Association?

bayh's politics are totally different than Dean's and it's plain to me what's happening here.

And I'm sure you wouldn't be bashing anyone!

[tjdee]

14. Thanks for not biting my head off at least, LOL!

Well...

I don't know too much about Bayh's politics besides the fact that he is a centrist. And Dean is a moderate/centrist on a number of issues as well.

So my question was, how do I know this reporter is accurate when he/she says Bayh was targeting Dean specifically (which he/she may have, which I find strange if Bayh/Dean are both moderates? It seems as if they were friendly in the past (I mean, he was comfortable with Dean escorting his wife around), it's a bit odd Bayh would now attempt to sabotage him, if that's the case. Does Bayh now perceive Dean to be more liberal or something?

I just was curious to see what exactly Bayh said. Doesn't really mean anything to anything, I was just curious.

[Eloriel]

16. I saw the clip -- it was obvious to me who Bayh was talking about

So yes, that's an accurate observation in the article, AFAIC.

Look, the leaders of the DLC (From, Will Marshall, etc.) have PNAC and other neo-con ties. IMO they can't be trusted, except to throw elections to the Repugs (even if that isn't their conscious intention, but I believe a case could be made that it is their intention) or to support Repugs by diminishing or thwarting dissent about many of their policies.

The rest of them (Bayh, et.al.) have been hoodwinked into believing the DLC lies -- that you can't criticize a "popular" president (even when it's increasingly clear that the polls showing that are skewed), that you're soft on defense unless you supported an immoral war the justification of which simply didn't exist. Etc., etc.

Some of these guys are simply under the effects of some kind of mass hypnosis.

Eloriel

[Ardee]

3. So what was the question again?

Oh, is the WH worried about Dean, well who cares? Frankly Im worried about Dean, and on a couple of levels. The key to this coming election, as the article states , is the small percentage of uncommitted and alienated voters. The question should be will Dean be able to energise and get these folks to commit to him?

Anger is something most can relate to, we all give in to it far too often, heck which of us isnt damned angry about this administration?
However there must be something behind that anger, it should not be perceived as nothing but a ploy to get elected. When all the angry words are silenced there should be a platform that people can agree with and vote for, and this is where Dean loses me. I see no reason to accept that this magical transformation from a centrist governor who catered to corporate interests is suddenly my champion.

Anger speaks loudly, but truth speaks forever, so the question is whether Dean speaks truth and speaks to the uncommittted. Whether Karl Rove was serious when he said that he wanted a Dean nomination is not known to me, but he did say it! When Dean says he sees no future for a national health care system he loses me as I see another fat cat doctor protecting his own, but this is not the place for Dean bashing........

[JNelson6563]

6. well let's think about this....

while I will ignore the slams you work in I think this is of particular interest:

Anger is something most can relate to, we all give in to it far too often, heck which of us isnt damned angry about this administration?
However there must be something behind that anger, it should not be perceived as nothing but a ploy to get elected. When all the angry words are silenced there should be a platform that people can agree with and vote for....

Let's think back to the minute Clinton announced he was running. Atwatter and friends were there to sling dirt. Fictional dirt derived from angry folks who didn't get to hop on the bandwagon when Clinton won, but anger nonetheless.

Then we have the Rush, Savage, Coulter crowd. Hate-mongering andgyr neo-cons. Gingrich, one angry bastard. My-oh-my but they knew great sucess and they really had nothing behind all that anger. Some poorly done soft-porn from Starr's office and a really lame-ass impeachment.......all done with anger as the motivator.

Here we have 2.5 years of Team Bushunder our belt and many are angry. Are they angry over some trumped up charges of improper sex? Um, no. I think, and sure as hell hope, that I do not need to explain to you what folks are angry about. All that Team Bush has done has pretty much made me angry but I am a Dem, no surprise there. The thing is many who usually pay no attention and, surpisingly enough, even some R's are pretty darn angry.

Throw in the hand-wringing, meeley-mouthed "I stnadc shoulder to shoulder with pResident Bush" crowd from the loyal opposition and, well I challenge you to show me some anger that exists that is not warranted or motivating.

Show me.

Julie

[Ardee]

26. slams? me? never? well....

Sorry that you feel my remarks accurately attributed to Dean are slams, blame him he said them......

Unwarranted anger you ask, well you mentioned Coulter and company , not me, are their diatribes fact based, motivating or warranted?

To my taste the anger at the mere mention of the Nader name, usually from posters who have never read his speeches, at least in their entirety and not cut and pasted for effect is certainly unwarranted and unproductive. Hell, if the dems had listened to Nader, heeded his words they'd have carried the election in '02!

As to the Clinton example, I was really peeved that he was so mild in his responses to the eight year campaign of lies against him. I wish to hell he'd have carried the attack to these cretins and, given his intellect and abilities to speak with passion and meaning, he'd have destroyed them in short order.But he would have done it sans anger!

Gingrich went from king of the hill to bottom of the barrel in short order did he not? I do, however , agree that anger at the lack of opposition from the democrats is rather warranted! My problems with the type of anger Dean displays is simply that he doesnt back it with concrete and believable platform items. He waffles on social security, waffles on national health care, waffles on reducing the size of the military budget, waffle waffle waffle, and I like pancakes myself........

[JNelson6563]

28. haha! Good one...

When Dean says he sees no future for a national health care system he loses me as I see another fat cat doctor protecting his own, but this is not the place for Dean bashing........

But nevermind that......

Unwarranted anger you ask, well you mentioned Coulter and company , not me, are their diatribes fact based, motivating or warranted?

Why no, they weren't. They get the masses whipped up and then provide nothing. I note that hate-mongerers from the reich-wing seem to be a bit less popular than at the height of Clinton-hunting. A good thing, obviously.

I think if the people who are in their happy-ignorant-daze right now realize how often they have been lied to and how seriously we are screwed financially, well they'll get angry.

Remember the days after 9/11, when the initial shock wore off? There was a lot of anger among other things. That could have easily been channeled into productive attitudes. Well, if it really had been a horrible surprise attack (in the government's view), and we had a government that saw it as a tragedy, not an opportunity, I believe that anger could've been steeled into determination.....think if the WH and the rest of government had gone on a let's-cut-ME-oil-consumption-drastically kick. I am pretty sure it would have been seriously effective. Anger can be turned into more productive things but it's often the "gateway emotion" (for a fun turn of phrase).

Look how effective the hate-Clinton campaign has been. How many out there believe Clinton was such a bad guy who committed all sorts of atrocious crimes? Countless. Is it true? Of course not.

Such can be used in a way as to end in justice. The American people have every reason to be angry and when they do get angry enough they will take steps. One of those steps is likely to be to elect someone who they feel can relate to them.

I am of the opinion that Dean can make a difference when in office. The fact that he's not determined to ram a National Healthcare plan (easily painted as the infinitely hated "welfare" so hated by the reich-wingers) tells me he is no fool and seriously wants to accomplish something as opposed to fighting for the impossible and getting nothing. The all-or-nothing mindset will get us a lot of nothing.

Julie

[AP]

7. Two more comments about anger:

- in one of Beschloss's books on LBJ, there's a comment by LBJ about one of the Republicans lining up to run against him (can't remember which one, maybe Goldwater). LBJ says he's not so worried about the guy because all he does is get angry about what the Democrats are doing. LBJ says that you can't ever win an election by being against everything. People only vote for you if you're for something they believe in.

- The moment in American and world history when the notions of optimisim and anger reached their peak as political tools was during WWII. Hitler in Germany took anger to its farthest point in getting people to support fascism. Back home in America, the Republicans wanted to use anger and fear to get elected too. FDR had two ways to respond to it. He could have used anger and fear himself. He didn't. He used optimism and he was soothing. He knew that anger and fear are tools of the right and not the left. If he had used those tools, we would have been conceding home field advantage to the fascists and the fascists can always out-fear and out-anger and out-fascist the party which is only insincerely using those tools.

Democrats stand for a set of principles to which fear and anger are the antithesis. Some Democrats might come along and use those tools to energize people at the fringe of the party, or people for whom those core Democratic values (optimism, an embrace of progress) aren't the reason they are Democrats. However, Democrats who use the tools of fear and anger are doomed to fail because, as FDR knew, they are antithetical to the core values of Democracy and will never secure a majority of the publics support of a Democratic candidate trying to wield them.

[liberalnurse]

4. Yes, they are worried!

If Dean's funding keeps going upward, say 14 million this quarter....they will really know he has a ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

A take-off of Liebermans, "ticket to nowhere."

Get out you check books folks....if your angry and fed up with this administration. If your blood pressure is up....the prescription to treat this infection is Dean.

Dean 2004

[Gin]

8. He tapped into my anger. He also is saying what I want to hear..

Dean is a fresh face, with no corporate baggage like the rest.
He is reaching the quiet majority who are very unhappy with the current thugs in our house, picking our pockets. The other Dems, can say what they want, I will vote for whomever I want based on what I know to be true.

Our reps in Congress rolled over for shrub. They are and were afraid for their jobs, and maybe their lives. Too bad. Courage is shown in the face of adversity. They went with the status quo. That is not courage.

[AP]

9. Edwards, Kucinich and Sharpton have no corporate baggage.

Edwards made a career of fighting corporations and accepts no PAC or lobbyist money. Kucinich lost the mayorship of Cleveland because he wouldn't sell the electric company to a private corporation (and Cleveland has the lowest electricity rates in the NE?/America? as a result). The only reason corporations don't hate Sharpton is because they now realize that equality of opportunity in employment actually makes corporations more competitive and profitable.

Of course Kerry has the connections to business that you can't avoid as a politician, but the guy doesn't take PAC money.

Nobody running for the democratic nomination has rolled over for Bush. In fact, most of them are hitting Bush hard where it hurts. And the place where it hurts the most is when the Democrats point out that Bush is trying to change America into a place where the people who have money and power now will always have it and the working and middle class won't have power and wealth because they'll be handing it all over to the wealthy.

Anger is a losing emotion (for a Democrat). FDR knew it and LBJ knew it.

[liberalnurse]

11. Yes, but they are not able to sustain

momentum and retain confidence like Dean. We need someone who can take the hits. Kucinich shows his frustration on his sleeve and he focuses on the obscure issues. I like Kucinich and support him in Ohio for Ohio needs but he is not Presidential material that can beat *bush. *bush is the primary target. We need Dean.

[tjdee]

13. How can you tell that?

They can't sustain momentum?

Don't you think it's a bit premature to say so?

Howard Dean has really taken off in the past 2-3 months, but I don't think any other candidate has been running full throttle. Dean has been really, really working it. The others are laying back until later on--the campaigns of Kerry and Edwards have said as much. If they were, and weren't catching on, that'd be different.

What is your definition of 'retain confidence'? Dick Gephardt maintains his numbers in Iowa, for example, in spite of a Dean insurgence. Is that not retaining confidence?

I'm wondering how you're drawing these conclusions.

[Eloriel]

17. Uh, tdjee, Dean is now ahead in Iowa

according to one of the morning talk shows I've been watching.

It could be that one or more of these other candidates can "sustain" momentum -- my question is, when are they going to START their momentum? Dean's the only one who's got any.

Eloriel

[tedoll78]

18. Oh, and his name recognition..

is still down around 46%. He's nowhere near his peak if less than half the nation has heard of him.

[liberalnurse]

20. I am a good judge of who can fight in the long hall.

Yes, it is totally subjective in this statement but let us not forget, people vote. I just don't get empowered by any of the others. I really want to win and take back the White House....that is my only goal. I just get a comfortable feeling picking Dean to take us back home. I feel it's almost dutiful to back Dean....since I want to win.
He has passion and brains. He is willing to go the extra mile. He wants the job, not the position.

I keep an eye on Kerry, Edwards, looked at Kucinich but I keep comming back to Dean.

Dean hits things head on...we really do have a wicked battle ahead of us. The current betlway dems have come up short. Especially Gephardt. I'd vote for Sparky the dog before Gephardt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "Nobody has rolled over for Bush."???

Did you miss the vote on FOR the war in Iraq that the four dwarves made?

[AP]

21. Nothing was going to stop Bush.

What matters is what happens next, and by doing what they did then, they retain the ability to have an impact on that discussion -- the one that really matters.

It's like France and Germany. They have no say on what happens in Iraq now. If you really care about what happens to Iraqis, you want to have a say in what happens next.

One of the things that makes this issue so complicated is that, if you really care about Iraqis, fewer will die, and many of them have a much better chance at happiness and wealth if Hussein is gone. This is why what happens next is the most important thing.

Don't get me wrong -- American Imperialism is a bad thing, and there were a thousand ways to deal with this situation which would have been better -- but what matters is what happens next, and none of the nominees, other than maybe one, are on the wrong side of that issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Phew..talk about tortured logic.

Edwards, Liebrman, Kerry and Gephardt "retain their ability to have an impact on the discussion". When do they start? As senators, will they have more impact than the 23 senators who voted against the war?

Please explain to me how co-sponsoring a bill supporting the invasion of Iraq without the OK of the UN, against the will of the vast majority of the people of Iraq and the world, furthers the cause of anti-imperialism?

France and Germany have no say because they opposed the aggression? Does that mean they should have supported it?

"One of the things that makes this issue so complicated is that, if you really care about Iraqis, fewer will die, and many of them have a much better chance at happiness and wealth if Hussein is gone. This is why what happens next is the most important thing."

Apparantly, someone forgot to tell the Iraqis of their good fortune.

[realFedUp]

10. 12 Step Program for Dem leadership

The 12 Suggested Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous (and in this case, the DLC and DNC) This is just satire, although words were changed, not changing the original intent.

We admitted we were powerless over GW Bush--that our lives had become unmanageable.

Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves (the people) could restore us to sanity.

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of the people as we saw them.

Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Were entirely ready to have the people remove all these defects of character.

Humbly asked the people to remove our shortcomings.

Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the people, praying only for knowledge of their will for us and the power to carry that out.

Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Democrats, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

[liberalnurse]

12. Excellent and so

applicable in a time we democrats need to get in touch with our political spirituality.


:kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. George Will carrying water for the republicans

[Wonder]

22. It is difficult to say: Dean, moveon, and AIPAC

probably this article was placed here before I began participating here at DU... perhaps it is disinformation or anti-democratic propaganda...

snip

In fact, Dean's alignment with AIPAC and their right-wing politics goes much deeper than aligning with the group’s platform. Last year, he named Steven Grossman, a former AIPAC head, as his campaign's chief fundraiser. Soon after, he flew to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored junket.

And in a telling statement about whether a President Dean would act any differently toward Iran than the Bush neocons, Dean also told The Forward, "The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism."

In fact, Dean thinks President Bush is way too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' “Face the Nation,” Dean explained that " is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians," something that would certainly come as a surprise to the current regime leaders in Iran who've been labeled as part of an alleged "Axis of Evil" by the current U.S. president. Dean even left open the possibility of preemptive strikes against that country in that interview, adding that "we have to be very, very careful of Iran."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

snip
To: Dr. Howard Dean

As members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, The Green Party, Progressives, Independents, and other parties interested in your candidacy, we would like to express our deep reservations regarding your stated positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based on speeches and interviews given last year and early this year, you spoke often of the Israeli victims of terror, yet you failed to acknowledge the three-fold number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces, or the Israeli military's incursion and illegal occupation of large portions of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These incendiary actions by the Israeli military have fueled much of the animosity in the region, and they must be acknowledged in any fair assessment of the situation. It is also important to recognize that the expropriation of land and settlement activities have been repeatedly condemned by the U.N. Security Council, and the United Nation's General Assembly has determined that Israel's occupation of the territories have "no legal basis".

Additionally, in an interview with The Forward earlier this year, you stated that your views are closer to AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) than APN's (Americans for Peace Now). We view AIPAC's positions as more hawkish and one-sided, resembling the vision of the neocons within the Bush administration; and APNs as multilateral, reaching out to all sides of the conflict. We understand that statements can be taken out of context and misread. Can you clarify this statement?

Lastly, you said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that you support the $8 billion in loans recently given to Israel and would in fact increase the amount of annual aid from $3 billion to $4 billion . Consider the following facts:

more...
http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/signed.php3?lang=eng

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1632620.php

Has Dean clarified his position since these petitions were filed?

[hedda_foil]

29. Info on Dean and I/P

This is snipped from http://deandefense.org/archives/000662.html

Why I'm Supporting Howard Dean (The View of an American Muslim)
by Aziz H. Poonawalla
August 8, 2003
(Originally posted at alt.muslim)

Recently, Muslim Wake Up posted an indictment of Howard Dean as "Sharon's Man" based on initial clues on his position towards the Middle East conflict.

It is undeniable that Dean has said that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "in line with AIPAC's". And it is true that Dean considers resolution of the conflict to start with the cessation of terrorism, which in my view is mistaken because it puts cart before horse. Others have noted with alarm that Dean has named Steven Grossman (former head of AIPAC) as his chief fundraiser.

However, this does not mean that Dean is "Sharon's man." In fact the naming of Grossman is a clear indicator of Dean's inherent balance and affinity for moderation. In 1993, Grossman persuaded AIPAC to issue a unanimous declaration of support for the Oslo accords. Grossman supported Bill Clinton in 1991 after Tsongas dropped out, and left AIPAC in 1997 as a more bipartisan and balanced organization than ever before (or since).

Look, if resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle with a Palestinian bias was my single issue, then I may as well vote for Bush again. Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia, and his need for regional stability in Iraq and the Arab world, make him far more Abu Mazen's man than Sharon's. Note that the loan-guarantees pressure on Israel due to the Apartheid Wall. Did we ever see that kind of tough attitude during the Clinton Administration? In fact, Clinton explicitly encouraged the blatantly false perception that Barak was "generous" at Camp David - even though the offer to the Palestinians was the equivalent of prison-state cantons.

I am an American Muslim. As such, frankly speaking I care more about America than either Israel or Palestine. And Dean is not an anti-Muslim genocidal maniac or a Zionist zealot dreaming of Eretz Israel. His defining characteristic is that he governs from principle and facts, not ideology (infuriating liberals and conservatives alike). I certainly don't think he can do worse than Bush in the Middle East when it comes to finding a just solution that puts the responsibility for progress on both sides.

The bottom line is that I think we American Muslims need to stop obsessing on the Middle East conflict as the barometer of our political affinity. Our interests as American Muslims are not the same as Muslims in Europe or the middle east. We are electing a President for our country, not theirs. I respect that my fellow muslims feel passionate about the issue of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including Al-Muhajabah, who has started the Muslims for Kucinich blog) but I also firmly feel that such efforts are as misguided - and as potentially self-damaging - as the Muslim/Arab support of George Bush in the 2000 election.

The bottom line is that we need a Democrat - and Dean is the sole candidate who can beat Bush. Only Dean - by virtue of his centrist fact-driven approach to policy - can inspire more voters to the polls, can draw interest and support from the libertarians, independents, greens and even disaffected conservatives ("Dean Republicans" analogous to the Reagan Democrats). Only Dean has revolutionized politics by creating a grassroots-centric model of fundraising and political action.

Dean is the only candidate that Muslims should support, if we are to strive for true "electability" and actual progress on what matters most to us, as Americans.

(Recommended: The Progressive Case for Dean, via Dean Defense. For more information about Howard Dean and his candidacy, please visit the official campaign blog or the unofficial Dean Nation 2004 blog.)

Aziz H. Poonawalla runs the popular weblogs Shi'aPundit and UnMedia.

Posted by Matt at August 9, 2003 03:07 PM

Comments
Very interesting commentary,
I was wondering how you felt about the likely appointment of Jeremy Ben Ami, his present policy director, to some sort of forigen policy based postion in Dean's cabinent. Despite Dean's leaning towards AIPACs positions, it does give me hope that he's putting someone who was previously involved with the New Israel Fund (www.nif.org/) as his policy director. Which though to taking a position on the occupation, does oppose policies that oppress Palestinians living in Israel, and trys to change the image of Palestinians as terrorists.

Posted by: Roey at August 11, 2003 12:25 AM
Post a comment

[aquart]

23. The Sunday pundits were on his case.

Was it Cokie who pointed out his prep school cost $30,000 a year just like George's fancy background.

He was also quoted from his yearbook as saying "I am a conservative."

I guess calling him a leftist played too well in Peoria. So now they're trying to say he's really just like George.

Wow. That IS being vicious.

[Cha]

25. That is so funny! Dean can't be labeled and they're trying

their damnest to do it.

I'm so Glad Dean is able to reach a lot of different kinds of People with the call for "Taking Back Our Country!"

So Dean didn't come from Dirt Poor People..Dean has made something of himself anyway!

If the mediawhores want to start comparing bush and Dean..I say "Bring It ON"!

[dansolo]

27. Hannity was positively giddy about Dean being the candidate

That tells me they are really scared.