washingtonpost.com
Dissing Dean
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 6, 2003; 11:13 AM
Howard Dean wants to cut Medicare.
Howard Dean doesn't like affirmative action.
Howard Dean has an anti-black agenda.
Howard Dean doesn't back Israel.
Howard Dean is the NRA poster boy on gun control.
Howard Dean supports the Confederate flag and has insulted Southerners with his divisive rhetoric.
That, at least, is the picture being painted by Dean's Democratic opponents.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these attacks say more about the determination of the stop-Dean crowd than the former governor himself.
Dean's shoot-from-the-lip style does tend to get him into trouble, and he waited too long before acknowledging yesterday his poor choice of words. But does anyone really believe he's pro-Confederacy, not to mention anti-Medicare, anti-Israel and the rest?
What's really happening here is that Dean is in danger of running away with this thing, and his rivals are trying to squirt some grease in his path.
They should, of course, rip Dean over his positions. If he wants to peel back the whole Bush tax cut, slam him for raising taxes on middle-class families.
But the sharp exchanges at the Rock the Vote debate were only the latest example of trying to hang the Vermonter with positions he doesn't really hold, or abandoned years ago. To say that you want the support of pickup-driving southerners with Confederate decals is simply another way of saying you want to broaden the Democratic base in a region where the party, as we saw again Tuesday in Mississippi and Kentucky, has not done too well in recent years.
I just finished watching a 30-minute Dean infomercial, based on a Sioux City town meeting. People didn't ask about these gotcha issues. They asked about health care, college costs, the war -- the bread-and-butter issues that fueled Dean's rise in the first place. Dean admitted he once called Medicare a "dreadful" program -- but explained, as a doctor, that he meant it was badly run.
Whether the latest political attacks take their toll on Dean, who's all but certain to opt out of the public financing system and spend megabucks, will probably determine the nomination battle.
Here's the Dean backtrack, in the New York Times:
"Howard Dean apologized on Wednesday for his recent comments about Southerners who display the Confederate flag, saying, 'I deeply regret the pain that I may have caused.' He said he would lead the nation in a 'difficult and painful discussion' about race.
"A day after the issue arose in a Democratic presidential debate, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, interrupted a planned speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan about campaign finance to invoke the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, and condemn the Confederate flag as 'a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery.' By day's end, in New Hampshire, he added that he also 'apologized for any people in the South who thought they were being stereotyped.' . . .
"By Wednesday he made clear that he realized that his 'clumsy' handling of the issue had become a large problem. In an interview with editors of The New York Times, he spoke of being in a 'jam' and a 'big contretemps.' He used the phrase, 'assuming we get through the current unpleasantness.'
"He said he had been up most of the night pondering the problem, and called former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday morning for advice."
Geez, it wasn't THAT big a deal.
The Chicago Tribune mulls the impact on the South:
"Dean, who has moved to the top of the field in polls in the early-balloting states of New Hampshire and Iowa, and is expected to win the endorsement of the AFL-CIO's largest union Thursday, has aggressively sought to increase his support among black voters. Aides acknowledged that the controversy over the flag remark, if left unanswered, threatened to complicate those efforts. . . .
"Merle Black, a professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta, said Dean's comments suggested that he did not have a grasp of the political realities in the South, from which the last three Democratic presidents have come. Not only were the comments potentially degrading, Black said, they could make it more difficult for Dean to appeal to all Southern voters."
Well, he wasn't THAT sorry:
"Although apologetic, Dean told reporters that he felt his attempt to make a point about divisions within the Democratic Party was misinterpreted," says the Los Angeles Times.
" 'I was disappointed by the attacks because I think there has been a certain amount of attempts of distorting what I originally said,' Dean said in Manchester. 'But that's politics. People are going to do what they have to do to push aside the folks that are ahead of them.' "
Slate's William Saletan shreds the flag issue:
"The headline coming out of this debate is the pounding Howard Dean took for saying he wants the votes of guys who sport Confederate flags. It's a bum rap.
"For days, Dean's opponents have assailed his flag comment. A few minutes into Tuesday's debate, a questioner told Dean, 'I recently read a comment that you made where you said that you wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks. When I read that comment, I was extremely offended.'
"Note the first three words: 'I recently read. . . . ' The questioner was obviously unaware that Dean has used this line all year. Had the questioner heard Dean's previous speeches, such as the one Dean delivered to the Democratic National Committee in February, he would have known exactly what Dean meant.
"As Dean put it on that occasion, 'I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.'
"I have that speech on videotape. I'm looking at it right now. As Dean delivers the line about Confederate flags, the whole front section of the audience stands and applauds. . . .
"Dean's opponents knew what he meant, too. That's why none of them raised a whimper when he used the flag line at the DNC meeting, or when he used it again at the California State Democratic Convention. Why are they pouncing on him now? Because he has become the frontrunner and because in his latest repetition of the line, he shorthanded it."
Salon's Joan Walsh also dismisses the Confederate contretemps:
"Does anyone really believe that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was borrowing a playbook from the GOP and telegraphing coded support for Southern racism . . . ?
"Dean explained his unorthodox approach this way: 'We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross section of Democrats.'
"I'd add this: Democrats can't beat Bush unless they abandon their elitist approach to working-class cultural conservatives, especially in the South -- and the opportunistic, preachy pile-on by Dean's Democratic opponents after his remarks won't help. . . .
"Can Kerry possibly think Dean 'embraced' the Confederate flag with his statement? Of course not. So Kerry's huffy reaction makes him look dishonest, not courageous. And sure, Gephardt is entitled to pass up the support of anyone he chooses, but his self-righteous Dean bashing just confirms the electorate's suspicions that Democrats are elitists who prefer ideological purity to mass appeal when casting their net for supporters.
"If there was any political subtext or hidden calculation behind Dean's remarks -- and I have no evidence there was -- my guess is that he knew his candor would trigger his opponents' inner scolds. And then, while they scrambled to proclaim their political correctness, Dean would once again look like the plain-talking guy who takes risks, who says what's on his mind, who leads and doesn't merely follow. Whether Dean planned it or not, his rivals -- predictably -- took the bait."
Dean also scores with Andrew Sullivan:
"There's no need for him to apologize for his confederate flag remarks. The fact that he held firm under fire last night [during the debate] struck me as a good sign of his tenacity and refusal to give in to p.c. lynch-mobs.
"He's absolutely right to say that the Dems need to appeal nationally again -- wasn't that Zell Miller's point? But the true test of a serious pol is if he can hold fast when being pummeled for the wrong reasons.
"Dean won the exchange in my eyes."
The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh gives Dean a mixed report card after the debate and before he expressed his regret:
"Dean's point is easily understood: He believes that cultural issues keep a significant number of Southerners voting Republican when their economic interests lie with the Democrats. And there is no reason to think him a bigot.
"Still, the blunt Vermonter occasionally displays dangerous symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease -- and last night he made that condition worse by refusing to regret a poor choice of words.
"That betrays a stubborn streak that is a distinct detriment in a candidate. Edwards, on the other hand, showed an impressive ability in his political cross-examination of Dean."
The Note has this post-debate analysis:
"Dean didn't take the bait and lose his temper, so it could have been worse. But he could be perceived as most everything else his critics say -- arrogant, aloof, disconnected and an insensitive blueblood.
Not to mention this great bit of post-debate color on The Note about candidate Dennis Kucinich:
"The man with whom Kucinich had the most bitter words was not a fellow candidate on the stage, but a journalist in the spin room. Kucinich supporters, angry that their candidate had been cancelled by CNN's Paula Zahn show while five other candidates were interviewed, started insisting to Time columnist and CNN commentator Joe Klein that CNN interview Kucinich.
"Klein pointed out that he wasn't a CNN producer and had no say in the matter, but went a step further to explain that were he to make the decision, which he does when it comes to his column, he would never dedicate space to Kucinich. Kucinich himself confronted Klein in front of reporters and the altercation became heated. Klein walked away as Kucinich was in mid-sentence.
"Later Klein told ABC News he wouldn't dedicate one line to Kucinich because 'I think he's cluttering the stage and his position on the most important issue out there, which is the war, is totally ridiculous.' Campaign spokesman David Swanson would only state the campaign's standard line on the media: 'Members of the media should communicate to the public all of the candidates' positions and let the voters decide.'
"Looks like Dennis has lost the Klein Primary.
Speaking of the Ohio congressman, "The weirdest performance of the evening came from Kucinich, but that was no surprise," says Dan Kennedy. "He and Clark looked like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in their black ensembles; perhaps they're auditioning for MiB III. Kucinich was wearing orange make-up, and toward the end -- waving his arms and shouting out a five-point plan for something or other -- he looked positively bug-eyed and unhinged. Kucinich's video did have the best music, though.
"Clark seemed sharper and more assertive than he has since his shaky start, but he still can't answer a simple question. Asked about lesbian and gay rights, he seemed to support letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, but then backed away. Afterwards, CNN's Paula Zahn asked him to clarify his 'blurred line' on don't ask/don't tell.
" 'I don't think there are any lines blurred there, Paula,' he replied, and then blurred things even more:
" 'We have a policy that may be working or may not be working.' The rest of his answer continued in a similar vein."
Should the also-rans get off the stage? National Review's Jim Geraghty:
"After five (Six? Ninety?) Democratic presidential primary debates, a disgruntled complaint is murmuring through the party: Get rid of the long shots. . . .
"Which debate organizer is willing to incur the wrath of Braun or Sharpton? Who wants to explain to the National Organization of Women why the candidate they endorsed, Braun, won't be getting a podium of her own any longer?
"In 1996, Alan Keyes got himself arrested by showing up uninvited to a GOP primary debate, and stirred up a hornet's nest of publicity and attention by accusing debate organizers of shutting him out, even threatening a hunger strike. Sharpton could turn his exclusion into a major media event and public-relations headache for the DNC faster than you can say, 'Freddie's Fashion Mart.'
"Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be able to attribute his exclusion to racial insensitivity -- but the passionate liberal, competing for the hearts and votes of the Naderites and Green-Party types, would probably cite his debate eviction as an example of the party selling its soul and losing its heart."
The next forum was yesterday's Planned Parenthood appearance, as the Boston Globe reports:
"Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call 'partial-birth abortion,' Senator John F. Kerry declared last night 'there is no such thing as a partial birth,' as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters."
Gephardt skipped the Anderson Cooper debate, and American Prospect's Mary Lynn Jones wonders why he isn't more popular in his own backyard:
"Granted, Gephardt leads the other candidates in piling up endorsements from lawmakers, with more than 30 to his name. But the fact that Gephardt hasn't slam-dunked support from his colleagues -- plenty of representatives have come out in favor of other candidates -- says something about his leadership in Congress. After all, he's been there for 26 years and presumably has done enough favors for lawmakers as the party's leader that they might feel they need to repay him. Yet many have said that other candidates have better policy proposals -- and better chances of winning.
"Gephardt has announced that this term in Congress will be his last. He has no committee assignments, which means his full-time job is basically campaigning for president. While other lawmakers running for president are still balancing their campaigns with their full congressional duties, many Democrats were only too happy to see Gephardt turn the party's leadership reins over to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). At least they know she's giving her full attention to helping Democrats develop a message, raise money and try to retake the House.
"Perhaps I'm being too harsh in judging Gephardt by his time on the Hill. But his record in Congress is one of his major selling points as a candidate, and it's the only record voters can use to predict what he would be like as president. If he succeeds in exciting the base enough to win the nomination, more power to him. But if his leadership skills couldn't generate enough enthusiasm to rally the troops on Capitol Hill -- those who were already converted to the cause -- that raises legitimate questions about his ability to ignite a fire among rank-and-file Democrats and those all-important swing voters."
On the Iraq front, some Republicans are finally speaking up:
"Sharply criticizing the Bush administration's accelerating effort to turn the Iraq war over to Iraqi security forces," says USA Today, "Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that the United States should send at least an additional 15,000 U.S. troops to Iraq.
"The Arizona Republican warned that the administration otherwise risked 'the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam.'
" 'Victory can be our only exit strategy,' said McCain, a former presidential aspirant and Vietnam veteran who spent 51/2 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi."
And, guess what, the Repubs are accusing the Dems of playing politics over Iraq:
"Senate Republicans expressed outrage yesterday over a memo that plotted a Democratic strategy for taking maximum political advantage of an investigation into U.S. intelligence before the war in Iraq," says the Washington Times.
"The memo, written by a staffer for Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat and co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Democrats 'pull the majority along as far as we can.' The Democrats then should change tactics and call for an independent investigation next year, when President Bush will be running for re-election, the memo said.
"Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the intelligence panel, said he was 'stunned' when he read the memo, and called it a 'purely partisan document that appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence.' "
I'm always stunned when politicians play politics.
washingtonpost.com |
