I have been saying for something like a year that the candidate I most desperately hope for Democrats to nominate is Senator Joe Lieberman. While he is consistently dismissed by most observers, I note that he is consistently in the top 3-4 candidates in the polls, and is steadfastly refusing to fade away. He is a moderate long-shot, but far from dead, and if I could afford it right now, I'd throw his campaign some cash.
Howard Dean is toxic. Not just to the country as a whole (although he is that), but to one of our most important, indeed vital, institutions: the Democratic Party.
It remains an utterly poisonous untruth to claim that George W. Bush "stole" the 2000 election, or that there was anything illegitimate about his narrow victory. He is not even the first President in living memory to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote; we are now pretty sure that John F. Kennedy also lost the popular vote to Richard Nixon in 1960. And Kennedy wasn't the first, either, because both Presidents Hayes and Harrison did it before him. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote, and never have. We do it based on semi-proportional representation of state elections (i.e. the electoral college), an enduring and functional way of electing Presidents that's as old as the Constitution, and has many valuable features that make it unlikely to ever change (among them, that it forces the candidates to pay attention to state issues).
Furthermore, it is completely without merit to continuously claim that Bush cheated to pull off his win in Florida, or that he was "appointed" by a right-wing Supreme Court. (Yes, I said it's false, and see this article if you aren't aware that it's false. It is simply not a matter of opinion, and not particularly subject to debate by rational persons. See this article too). Continuing to cling to this myth about stolen and illegitimate elections isn't just delusional, it's damaging to the country as a whole. Fortunately, only about 18% of the country believes in this delusion, but they appear to be almost all of Howard Dean's supporters--at least, he's the candidate who's most effectively exploited their rage, anyway.
And by the way, I'm going to repeat something I've said before in response to people who've told me how nice and sincere and optimistic and patriotic Howard Dean's supporters often are. The fact is that if you believe in, and put forth, vile falsehoods, I don't particularly care how cool you are to hang out with at parties, or what a terrific time you have hanging out with your fellow Dean supporters. If falsehoods about the 2000 election, which have been debunked time and again, drive your support, and if you believe vile things about America going to war just for oil or because we are bully imperialists or just want to make our President's business cronies rich, then you believe hateful things and are, at core, a hateful person. I don't care how many ear piercings you have, what kind of cool laid back attitude you have, how interesting your taste in music is, or what kind of terrific parties you throw. You believe vile, hateful, and deeply hurtful things about your own country, not to mention a President that tens of millions of decent, not particularly stupid people voted for and still support. (By the way, a Howard Dean supporter gave me that link--no surprise, just read the campaign web site that those people spend so much time bragging about as "innovative" and "daring" and so forth).
Howard Dean's shameless way of playing to that kind of irrationality--not just now and then in little jokes, but as a backbone undercurrent of his entire campagin--is toxic for the country as well as his party. Worse, he compounds this with very shallow, often irresponsible stances on national security that throw the Democratic Party back to its bad-old pre-Clinton days. Whatever else may be said of his other policy proposals (some of which I agree with, some of which I don't), the man is not who we need leading the world's oldest and (arguably) greatest political party.
Wesley Clark, on the other hand, is interesting. While he keeps saying stupid things in off-the-cuff remarks, he appears to be trying manfully to pull the party toward a Clintonian centrism, and deserves encouragement in that regard. Like almost all the Dems, he's exploiting rage, but it's not the backbone of his campaign. I could find a way to live with this guy, maybe.
The New Republic, however, recently gave a ringing endorsement to Joe Lieberman, one that I almost entirely agree with. I take issue with some of their characterizations of history (they dodge just how much Reaganism was embeded in the core of many of Clinton's policies, and their characterizations of the 2002 elections are shallow), but I can hardly dispute their arguments about why Joe is such a good choice. The money quote is in the conclusion:
The deep irony of Lieberman's campaign is that many Democrats view him as timid. But how much courage does it take for Dean to throw red meat to the party faithful? The Democratic Party is racing back to the '80s, with interest groups enforcing litmus tests on everything from partial-birth abortion to steel tariffs, and party activists dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld. Dean has helped create this mood of self-righteous delusion, and his competitors have, to varying degrees, accommodated themselves to it. Only Lieberman--the supposed candidate of appeasement--is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat. Three years ago, that vision seemed ascendant. Today, it is once again at the margins. It may take years, or even decades, for Democrats to relearn the lessons we thought, naïvely, they had learned for good under Clinton. But one day, Joe Lieberman's warnings in this campaign will look prophetic. And the principles he has espoused will once again guide the Democratic Party. It will be the work of this magazine, to whatever small degree possible, to hasten that day.
Read the whole thing, as the Professor would say.
"But you voted for Bush!" some of you will say. Yes I did. And I sure as hell won't hesitate for a second to vote for him again if Democrats don't nominate someone sane. But I do not hate Democrats, and I do not hate the Democratic Party, as much as it's done to alienate me over the last 10-15 years. I'd like to think I'm something other than a voice crying in the wilderness here, and I don't think I am. Are those of us saying these things simply wrong? Or do Democrats need to wake up and start listening?
Because this really matters, you know, and more than just the next election is at stake.
PS: You know, I really, really, really miss Pat Moynihan these days. A lot. Bob Kerrey too. And Sam Nunn. Even Dan-freakin'-Rostenkowski. I'm going to miss Dick Gephardt. Hillary's starting to give me some signs of hope, and Joe Biden's still out there and usually a class act. But they've gone from a party I frequently disagree with but will listen to, will try to give a chance, to one that's starting to scare the crap out of me. Does it matter? Do people who see it like me make a difference? I guess time will tell.
Poor Joe Lieberman...stuck as a conservative Democrat, when he should be a moderate Republican....
He wont fade away, because there is still a good 20% of the Democratic Party which hasn't gone completely 'round the bend....I suspect that after the disaster November will be for the Democrats, that a lot of them will wind up within the GOP....
No, he should not be a Republican. He should continue to be a responsible voice for reason and moderation within the Democratic Party.
We need him there. As a country, we need him there. Badly.
I agree. I want Bush to do the best job he possibly can as President. And I want the Democrats to do the best job they possibly can opposing him. I _don't_ want Bush to fail so a Democrat can win. I _don't_ want the Democrats to be stupid so Bush can be re-elected. I want what's good for the country, not merely for a party.
Yeah, people who really should be Republicans *should* dominate the Democratic Party. That's the ticket. We need him there!
I don't think that's true, Adam. But I also don't think it's true that people who really *should* be considered considered far left extremists should dominate it, either. That's not doing the party or the country any good.
Adam:
It's been a while since you've said something that wasn't snarky finger pointing.
Care to start talking substance?
If Joe Lieberman is a republican in democrat clothing, than why did The New Republic endorse him? Did you read their endorsement?
Near as I can figure it, all it takes to be "a Republican" is to be open-minded about school choice, to think middle class tax cuts are a good idea, and that the war in Iraq was justified.
Or is there something else?
Rosemary:
It's hard to avoid being flip when here in Dean's World, a moderate budget-balancer like Howard Dean is an insane hateful demagogue, and someone like Joe Lieberman, who goes out of his way to assure people how much he agrees with George Bush, is the ideal Democratic candidate for president. In Dean's World, the way to improve (save!) the Democratic Party is to make it as indistinguishable from the Republican Party as possible. In Dean's World, thinking the Iraq war was a huge mistake is to believe "vile, hateful things about your own country." In Dean's World, there's no difference between the policies of George Bush and "Clintonian centrism." In Dean's World, the way to elevate the level of debate is to write raving, vituperative posts about a commenter. In Dean's World, "liberal" means what it meant in, oh, 1830. In Dean's World, an unshakable Bush supporter (who only criticizes Bush mildly when he's *not conservative enough*) writes endless disingenuous posts about the fate of the Democratic Party.
So yeah, I don't find a lot of substance to respond to. But I still find it fascinating.
Dave:
Is Howard Dean a "far left extremist"? Is that who you meant? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why that is. Labels are easy, aren't they? This country has moved so far to the right that, as I said above, somehow a moderate budget balancer like Howard Dean can be considered an "extremist" of any kind. The fact that that assertion has gotten any traction shows how far to the right we are.
As far as I can tell from Dean Esmay's writings, Howard Dean is a hateful demagogue because he 1) thought the Iraq war was a huge mistake, and 2) doesn't think tax breaks are wise fiscal policy when a budget surplus has been transformed into a massive deficit. That's not my recipe for an insane hateful demagogue. You?
If you think the people up at the podium in the Democratic debates are "far left extremists," then I'd hate to see your idea of a "far right extremist." Those people must *really* be scary.
Joe Lieberman may have crossover appeal, but no matter what, I think his campaign is doomed. That's not to say he's on the wrong side of history. But I think he's out of touch with his own party, such as it is in early 2004.
Look -- I like Joe Lieberman a lot. I agree with most everything he stands for. I'd be thrilled to see him become the nominee. Of course, I'd vote for any of the likely Dem nominees. I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for this POTUS.
So I was initially surprised at the frigid reception Lieberman got from the party faithful when this campaign began.
But then I thought about it for a while. I remembered that this isn't 1992 anymore; nor is it even 2000. No, for Democrats, this is the aftermath of the mid-term elections of 2002. The guys who ran that campaign got a real spanking. The Deaniacs have turned on the likes of Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.
Can you blame them?
The strategy of making nice with President Bush was a miserable failure. Joe Lieberman thought he could write the legislation creating the Dept of HS; he thought he could back his labor buddies in the fight; he thought he could work with the White House. What he got in return was a slap in the face from POTUS, who all but called the Senators arrayed against the White House liars and traitors. Look at what happened to Max Clelland.
It was pure hardball and the Democrats were suckers and it worked. It really worked. The GOP won historic gains and ate the Democrats breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Fact is, it probably isn't going to make much difference who the Dems nominate; POTUS has a huge advantage over the field now, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
So....the Deaniacs figure to go down fighting. They'll destroy the party to save it.
How "Viet Nam."
But can you blame them?
Ara:
Are you saying that the Dems should continue trying to make nice with the Bush administration? You yourself said that was a miserable failure. And isn't doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, the definition of insanity?
Attn. Adam
The definition of insanity is spewing hateful things about Southerners FOR NO REASON other than to charm and appease your special interest groups and then expecting those same Southerners to embrace you. And, yes, what EvilDean (as opposed to GoodDeanEsmay) said about Southerners is hateful. So. I don't think he's hateful for critisizing Bush, or opposing the war. I think he's hateful for saying mean things about me, and my family, and my neighbors, and many of my friends. And don't even THINK of saying that the infamous "god, guns, and gays" quote isn't really all that bad.
Then, there's that bit about moderate budget balancing and taxes cuts. Want to know how EvilDean balanced his budget? I seem to think that tax increases helped. Now, I know, sometimes tax increases are necessary. But, he went SO far overboard that one city is actually trying to seriously join a bordering state.
To show you that I'm not a rabid EvilDean hater, I don't especially hold him accountable for the condition of the nuclear facility security (although even if it wasn't his job, I personally think he could have handled the situation better, but hindsight is 20/20) or even the fact that he didn't appoint any minorities to state-government positions. Afterall, just how many minorities are there in his little state?
And, lest you think I'm just a bitter republican female alone in the wilderness, there are lots more like me or almost like me. See, I'm a Republican and my husband is an Independent. Oddly enough, I've noticed that Rosemary is a Republican and GoodDean is an Independent, which makes me wonder about lots of households, but I digress. The point was ...
I'm not the only one annoyed with EvilDean parroting whatever rubbish the audience in front of him wants to hear. At best, he's being deceptive about his true beliefs and intentions should he be elected. At worst, he's wishy-washy with no views or beliefs, taken to drifting like an unpredictable moth. Neither of those are characteristics I'd like to see in a president. Either way, he's doing the Democratic party a disservice.
Sure, it doesn't really take all that much for a Democrat to offend Republicans. However, what about offending his own party loyals? That takes effort. I know a lot of loyal Democrats. In fact, my parents haven't voted Republican in decades. My father plans on voting for Bush (against Dean) and my mother, who has not missed a vote in her life because its her civic duty, will not vote at all if Dean is her choice. My best friend shudders at the choice. She really doesn't want to vote for Bush, but she will NOT vote for Dean. (She's fond of Joe) I think she was a little offended, at the obviously insincere and disrepectful way he's treating Christianity (using religion as a political tool, perhaps aimed at recovering the South). To paraphrase Chris Muir, The difference between Dean and Southerners is that Southerners ACTUALLY believe!
You know, for a guy that is such a charming moderate according to Adam, I sure feel the overwhelming urge to just shake him until his teeth rattle. (Dean, not Adam :)
P.S The difference between the left-extremists and the right-extremists is that the Republicans aren't seriously considering running one for the office of the President.
Adam:
Are you saying that the Dems should continue trying to make nice with the Bush administration?
Uh, no. I thought I was pretty clear on that: it didn't get them anywhere the last time.
That's why I understand and accept the smash-mouth appeal of a Howard Dean.
I just think this election will be climactic, one way or the other, for the Dems.
Joe Liberman is not even close to Republican. According to one of those online issue polls Bush and I agree 77%. Joe and I agree 42% and Dean and I agree 33%. Joe and Dean are alot closer together than Bush and Joe. All of the major party candidates are relatively moderate. You can't get very far from the center and get elected as a Governor, Senator or Congressman in this country, and Sharton and Clark haven't strayed too far from the center. Thank God the founders didn't pick proportional representation.
I fault Governor Dean for poisonous slander of the President in a time of war, for running an extremely divisive campaign during a time of war and for a deliberately weak position on national security purely to pander for votes during a time of war. In other words, he's worse than Nixon, another moderate, who would do almost anything to get elected. (Except throw the 1960 election into the courts, which arguably makes Gore worse thatn Nixon as well.) If Nixon had not indulged his paranoia during the '72 campaign we might very well have won the Vietnam war. Dean's utterly irresponsible ambition disqualifies him for the presidency, especially during a time of war. I don't want to lose the War on Terror because Dean thinks his ambitions are more important than our security.
Yours,
Wince
Hmmm.... Mulling it over, it looks to me like Lieberman's the best bet. I like Dean's stands on "God, guns, and gays", i.e., the Bill of Rights, but he's weak on national/military security issues. And his giving credence to balderdash about Bush secretly planning 9/11 doesn't help at all. Not that Sharpton hasn't done worse, i.e., giving credence to lies about Jews being behind slavery, the Tawana Brawly hoax, etc.. Shows how far the Democratic party has sunk that a charlatan like Sharpton is even in this race.
Lieberman looks much better. He's stronger on national/military security. I wonder if his Jewishness won't bar him from the White House or the nomination. England had Disraeli, but I suspect that, here in America, we'll probably see a black man or woman in the White House before we ever see a Jew there. Anti-elitism pervades our national culture, in the form of anti-Semitism, anti-homosexualism, or attacks on the wealthy or on intellectuals (per se). Blacks are a minority but they are not perceived as an elite. Long story.
One more thing: If Lieberman did joing the Republicans, he's be called a "RINO" for disagreeing on anti-homosexualism or some economic issue, and told to go back to the Democrats. If Barry Goldwater was around today, _he'd_ be called a "RINO" for opposing anti-homosexualism. I've had it with this "RINO" and "DINO" party-lining shit. (Libertarian Party party-lining, too. That party's going nowhere fast.) That's why I'm Independent.
Ara: So what *should* be the Dem strategy?
Allison:
Your whole "left-extremist" rap on Howard Dean is based on one comment? That's a pretty thin thread to grab onto, and it seems to be your only real beef with him.
And let's face it: religion is a deathtrap for all politicians, but especially those godless heathen Democrats, who want to do crazy things like not have a giant statue of the 10 Commandments in a state supreme court building. It's a no-win situation. If you're not religious enough, why not? And if you're too religious, then maybe your religion will be too much of a factor in your governing. They have to strike this elusive stance of calm piety to be given a pass. Why is religion *ever* more important in a political contest than governmental policy?
While it is true that Dean is reasonably moderate, he has attracted most of the left-extremists by irresponsibly pandering to them. There can be no other reason for him to repeat the 'Bush wanted 9/11 to occur' canard even while he disowns it.
Yours,
Wince
Wince:
Again with the "one comment argument." Imagine if Bush had to go on the campaign trail now, and defend every utterance he's made while in office? How about this gem from December 2000:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
Should I judge Bush on this one comment? (Of course in his case there are a million others. But you get my drift.)
And just as a pre-emptive strike against flames on other recent Howard Dean comments:
-Are we really safer with Saddam captured? Well, a NYT poll said 60 percent of Americans believe we're not. And the terror alert still goes up to orange. For anti-Iraq-war people like me, Howard Dean's comment was a no-brainer. But even for war partisans, it's debatable.
-Should Osama bin Laden get a trial? Well we tried the Nazis, and no one was really all that unsure about what they did, either.
I think you need to base your political positions, and especially abject hatred (in Dean Esmay's case) on something more than a single comment.
Adam:
If we aren't allowed to judge a man by what he say's are his positions, then what pray tell are we supposed to judge him by? Or should us sheeple just like him because you tell us to?
Baaaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa.
Howard Dean has spent more time explaining what he meant than telling us what he's gonna actually do.
"You know, I really, really, really miss Pat Moynihan these days. A lot.'
Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Henry "Scoop" Jackson are two of my heroes of the old Democratic party. And Harry Truman. Alas, the Truman Democrats seem to be in exile now, and the Henry "Bubblehead" Wallace "Progressive" types are running the show now.
And (you knew I was going to say this, didn't you?), the Republicans need to break with the Pat Robertsons and bring back the old Goldwater (AuH20 -- in your heart you know he's right) style of conservatism.
Rosemary:
You're missing my point, and injecting new stuff in. I never would tell anyone to support Howard Dean, much less this crowd. I know that I'm unlikely to change anyone's mind, especially in the poisonously polarized atmosphere of this country. I don't call the American people "sheeple" or anything like that.
All I was trying to say is, one comment does not a political candidate make. Especially when it's stretched like taffy by pundits and webloggers.
And Howard Dean must be talking about the issues, or Dean E. wouldn't be able to dissect H. Dean's positions so exhaustively.
Howard Dean is toxic, not only to the process, but the future of the liberalism here and any chance of preserving our democracy. The man is a sham liberal. His record in Vermont is completely self serving and he is an out and out fraud. I would gladly vote for any democrat running, short of Howard Dean.. were he to win the nomination, I will write in the name of the candidate I am supporting for the democratic nomination.. there is no way I can vote Dean.. it'd be the same as voting for Bush, because Dean is exactly the same as George W. Bush.
Great blog here by the way. I found it quite by accident, while searching for help after encountering some problems with my install of MT. I'll be adding a link to it as soon as I get the darned program installed and my blog online. So grateful to find other voices of reason on the 'net.
I have a small resistence to make on the section where you talk about believinig deeply hurtful and hateful things about our country if we believe what dean tells us. What if it's true? I'm not saying it is, but none of us obviously would be offered the knowledge necessary to know for a fact that it's not. For you to make that claim so forcefully does not help your argument at all because it looks like a big fat tub of denial. Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes the truth is deeply hurtful and hateful...this is true in all walks of life, and the presidency is not immune. That's a painfully and nauseatingly naiive statement. Also, the fact that you stereotype the dean supporters as you did makes it look like you may be a bit resentful, prejudiced or jealous. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you make a more sound argument.
Yes, I am in the Alabama National Guard. My unit (Military Police) has been activated since September 2002. I have been away from my home and family and wife for soon to be 2 years!!! I am very dissapointed in fact that our president has the nerve and audacity to send troops with wives, with children, with a life of their own, to fight and die for the sake of his pocket book and the pocket book of his closest corporate pals. I am shocked by your total lack of understanding that everything that man sent those very troops to Iraq for was a complete facade!!! There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was linked to Usama Bin Laden. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was even close to producing chemical, biological or nuclear agents. There were even reports from the British Intel community of that, and still that man went ahead with his plan. The United Nations, as well as many other countries, did not approve of the war, and yet that man went ahead with his plans. For you to say that Howard Dean is a hateful man for not agreeing with the warmongering, money hungry Bush is insane. You are a blind, ignorant person, as well as everyone else who believes in your ideals. You are not a Democrat, you are a right-wing fanatical who just wants to create dissent within the Democratic community. You and President Bush are hateful people.
Dean, in your article, "Republicans Doomed. Democrats Screwing Themselves..." Where do you get the information that the democratic attacks are based on innuendo, guilt-by-association, and hypocrisy? Are you so naiive as to believe that if any of it were true that guilty parties would fess up to it? I'm not a democrat. I'm not republican. I'm not libertarian. The problem i have wiht G.W. is not that he's a rich boy who's had an easy life. My problem with him is the fact that despite this easy life that was handed to him, he's still not content. That he makes contributions to his oil company in appropriations that he knows MUST be passed and that we are in FACT in a war in a major oil producing company - NOT in FACT because of the reasons we were given. I'm curious, Dean, as to how it is you call yourself liberal. What is liberal about being a tyrant to the world? What is liberal about giving tax cuts to teh wealthy? What is philosophical or well informed about naiively denying that there could be anything corrupt going on in the highest authority of our country simply b/c it's our country. Where's the liberalism???????
Dean, in your article, "Republicans Doomed. Democrats Screwing Themselves..." Where do you get the information that the democratic attacks are based on innuendo, guilt-by-association, and hypocrisy? Are you so naiive as to believe that if any of it were true that guilty parties would fess up to it? I'm not a democrat. I'm not republican. I'm not libertarian. The problem i have wiht G.W. is not that he's a rich boy who's had an easy life. My problem with him is the fact that despite this easy life that was handed to him, he's still not content. That he makes contributions to his oil company in appropriations that he knows MUST be passed and that we are in FACT in a war in a major oil producing company - NOT in FACT because of the reasons we were given. I'm curious, Dean, as to how it is you call yourself liberal. What is liberal about being a tyrant to the world? What is liberal about giving tax cuts to teh wealthy? What is philosophical or well informed about naiively denying that there could be anything corrupt going on in the highest authority of our country simply b/c it's our country. Where's the liberalism???????