Howard Dean just went on and told him
This morning, on NBC News' Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked him why, and Dean just went on and told him. transcript
He made some extremely important points about way the Bush administration works to mislead and manipulate--about social security, Iraq, abortion, Schiavo. He made the move that is essential for religious Democrats--he referenced the Bible, and he called the pompous, religionist politicians, "hypocrites" and "Pharisees." He claimed and named the moral imperatives of the Democratic party--concern for the working people, the old, the children, the ill, the uneducated. He hit all the talking points I've wanted to hear from Democrats. I kept thinking, "I've blogged on this!" He even explained that, as a doctor, he knows no one and cannot imagine anyone performing a late-term abortion when it wasn't medically necessary. That has seemed obvious to me--what doctors would destroy children who could survive and be adopted? It's not happening. And his explanation of the problems with the abortion debate was brilliant. The other side interprets "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," when that's not the case, so that many self-professed "pro-lifers" are actually pro-choice. His example: a woman, self-described as "pro-life," who didn't like abortion, but wouldn't be judgmental if her neighbor had one. Well, that's actually pro-choice, and as Dean pointed out, it probably describes most people who self-identify as "pro-choice." The labels have become meaningless. Most Americans agree on this issue, but they don't know it. And Dean explained this well.
He wasn't crystal clear about the traps the Republicans have been setting for the Democrats, but he defended their refusal to be tricked. I think Bush's silly private accounts campaign has been a stall, while his machine waits for the Democrats to fall for it and propose the only real solutions--we have to raise taxes or cut benefits. Then the Rovesky machine can use it to decry Democrats, while supporting the solution, since it's the only way. Same with the Schiavo case and the failed effort to bring Democrats into it. These are instances of the same old trick: leave a burning bag of dog dung on the porch, and wait for the homeowner to rush out and stomp the fire. The Republicans have been waiting for Democrats to rush out and stomp, which would allow the Republicans to point out how stinky they are, a plan that has often worked, but the Democrats aren't falling for it these days. Dean clearly knows why the Democrats are hanging back, but he didn't lay it out. That, too, may be strategy, because the Republicans will eventually only hurt themselves with their own foolishness.
I didn't support Dean for president, and I still wouldn't. But I did support him for Chairman of the DNC, because that's where we need a blunt and courageous spokesperson. But not in the presidency, where diplomacy is required.
A good president must be a negotiator. Sometimes those negotiations involve short hairs and paybacks, but the best presidents have known how to do it. Dean would not be a good player, any more than George W. Bush is.
The telling critique of Bush's presidency is to imagine Bush's "influence" if he faced a Democratic congress, like his father or Reagan did. Bush's success relies on the support he gains from Republicans controlling two branches of government (and Republicans having controlled judicial appointments for 17 of the past 25 years). He hasn't had to be a negotiator or a politician. He is only able to be effective as a CEO-president because he has been protected by a Republican congress.
I'm also very grateful to Tim Russert for giving Howard Dean an hour to tell it like it is, to keep asking hard questions that Dean was willing to answer bluntly. It was a great start on exposing the corruption under Republican control.
'Cause it's bad, you know.
He made some extremely important points about way the Bush administration works to mislead and manipulate--about social security, Iraq, abortion, Schiavo. He made the move that is essential for religious Democrats--he referenced the Bible, and he called the pompous, religionist politicians, "hypocrites" and "Pharisees." He claimed and named the moral imperatives of the Democratic party--concern for the working people, the old, the children, the ill, the uneducated. He hit all the talking points I've wanted to hear from Democrats. I kept thinking, "I've blogged on this!" He even explained that, as a doctor, he knows no one and cannot imagine anyone performing a late-term abortion when it wasn't medically necessary. That has seemed obvious to me--what doctors would destroy children who could survive and be adopted? It's not happening. And his explanation of the problems with the abortion debate was brilliant. The other side interprets "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," when that's not the case, so that many self-professed "pro-lifers" are actually pro-choice. His example: a woman, self-described as "pro-life," who didn't like abortion, but wouldn't be judgmental if her neighbor had one. Well, that's actually pro-choice, and as Dean pointed out, it probably describes most people who self-identify as "pro-choice." The labels have become meaningless. Most Americans agree on this issue, but they don't know it. And Dean explained this well.
He wasn't crystal clear about the traps the Republicans have been setting for the Democrats, but he defended their refusal to be tricked. I think Bush's silly private accounts campaign has been a stall, while his machine waits for the Democrats to fall for it and propose the only real solutions--we have to raise taxes or cut benefits. Then the Rovesky machine can use it to decry Democrats, while supporting the solution, since it's the only way. Same with the Schiavo case and the failed effort to bring Democrats into it. These are instances of the same old trick: leave a burning bag of dog dung on the porch, and wait for the homeowner to rush out and stomp the fire. The Republicans have been waiting for Democrats to rush out and stomp, which would allow the Republicans to point out how stinky they are, a plan that has often worked, but the Democrats aren't falling for it these days. Dean clearly knows why the Democrats are hanging back, but he didn't lay it out. That, too, may be strategy, because the Republicans will eventually only hurt themselves with their own foolishness.
I didn't support Dean for president, and I still wouldn't. But I did support him for Chairman of the DNC, because that's where we need a blunt and courageous spokesperson. But not in the presidency, where diplomacy is required.
A good president must be a negotiator. Sometimes those negotiations involve short hairs and paybacks, but the best presidents have known how to do it. Dean would not be a good player, any more than George W. Bush is.
The telling critique of Bush's presidency is to imagine Bush's "influence" if he faced a Democratic congress, like his father or Reagan did. Bush's success relies on the support he gains from Republicans controlling two branches of government (and Republicans having controlled judicial appointments for 17 of the past 25 years). He hasn't had to be a negotiator or a politician. He is only able to be effective as a CEO-president because he has been protected by a Republican congress.
I'm also very grateful to Tim Russert for giving Howard Dean an hour to tell it like it is, to keep asking hard questions that Dean was willing to answer bluntly. It was a great start on exposing the corruption under Republican control.
'Cause it's bad, you know.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 12:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home