SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MSI who wrote (21148)12/23/2003 12:25:32 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
In a Hostile Land, Trying Whatever Works
U.S. Officials in Iraq Learn to Adapt to Local Rules

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A01

RAMADI, Iraq -- When American diplomat Keith Mines wanted the bombed-out Baath Party headquarters here torn down, he began with contracting rules issued by the U.S. occupation authority. He posted an official notice soliciting bids. A week later, he accepted several sealed proposals, planning to choose the lowest bid.

Then Hamid Rashid Mahenna, an influential tribal sheik, heard about the contract. Mahenna wears suede jackets and a red-and-white headscarf, smokes Dunhill cigarettes, and owns a construction company. His tribesmen had been helping U.S. forces in Ramadi -- and he figured it was payback time. After the deadline, he drove up in his white Mercedes and handed Mines four sealed envelopes. Inside, Mines said, were bids far higher than those from other Iraqi contractors.

Mines, a 6-foot-5 Colorado native who is responsible for administering western Iraq, faced a choice. He could follow the rules and lose an ally, or make an exception to make a friend in one of Iraq's most hostile Sunni Muslim neighborhoods.

The recent capture of ousted president Saddam Hussein has intensified debate in Baghdad and Washington about how to reach out to Iraq's Sunnis, a minority that dominated Hussein's Baath Party. The answer might be found here. Mines is an example of how U.S. officials in the field, often working in dangerous conditions and isolated provinces, are embracing unorthodox, creative and daring approaches to build alliances with local power brokers.

After receiving Mahenna's bids, Mines said he met with the sheik and began bargaining. Mahenna eventually got a contract worth $35,000 -- about $15,000 more than what the lowest bidder offered.

"He's been very helpful to us. He's a force for stability in this area," said Mines, a State Department political officer with gray-streaked hair whose prior assignments in Afghanistan, Somalia and Haiti have left him with a sense of steadiness in the midst of postwar chaos.

Mines is taking unusual, even desperate gambles to win over the Sunnis in this town, and it is not yet clear whether they will pay off. Attacks on U.S. forces persist in Ramadi and the surrounding province of Anbar. Anger at the occupation also has not abated. But Mines insisted that courting sheiks such as Mahenna remains his best -- and perhaps only -- option.

"The war is going to be won or lost here," Mines said as gunfire of undetermined origin echoed across the city. "The Sunnis are the spoilers. If they're not satisfied with how things go in the next six months, they'll take the whole project down."

Communication Barriers

Mines, 46, who wears wire-rimmed glasses and has a talkative manner, was working at the U.S. Embassy in Budapest when he answered a call this summer for diplomats to work for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. Arriving in Iraq in August, he assumed he would be pulling a six-month stint as a policy planner in the marble-walled, heavily fortified Baghdad palace that serves as the authority's headquarters.

After a few days, the assignment changed. "They said, 'We need you to go to Ramadi,' " he recalled. "It wasn't what I was expecting."

Ramadi's residents are almost all Sunnis -- a once privileged but now resentful constituency whose acquiescence has become a top goal for U.S. strategists trying to construct a viable provisional government. Motivated by lingering loyalty to Hussein and angry over their loss of influence, Sunnis have been responsible for the vast majority of attacks on U.S. forces that have destabilized the occupation.

Built along the Euphrates River about 60 miles west of Baghdad, Ramadi is a city of boxy concrete buildings surrounded by date groves, farmland and barren desert. Home to scores of Baathists, it is rated by the U.S. military as one of the most dangerous places for Americans in Iraq. U.S. troops in the city are regularly the target of roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

In other places where he was posted, Mines said his best diplomatic work occurred outside his office. But in Ramadi, getting out has been difficult, if not impossible.

Security rules require him to live on a large U.S. military base and to drive with an Army escort. A head taller than most Iraqis and unmistakably Caucasian, he avoids walking around the city. On the rare occasions when he wants to travel without soldiers in tow, he tucks himself into the back of a taxi with tinted windows driven by an Iraqi man he trusts.

"I miss not being able to talk to people in the market," he said. "I want to ask them, 'What do you think of us?' You can't go bopping around. It's very limiting."

In an attempt to draw Iraqis to him, one of his first decisions upon arriving in Ramadi was to renovate a two-room suite in the governor's office that he shares with a team of Army civil affairs specialists. The office, located a few miles from the base, had been trashed by looters. He turned it into a welcoming salon.

The second-floor suite now has a brown sofa, plastic lawn furniture and more visitors than it can accommodate, from angry former soldiers seeking compensation from the U.S. military to sheiks inquiring whether they have won contracts. Mines, who eschews traditional American reconstruction garb -- the khaki vest and combat boots -- for a suit and tie, spends more time listening to grievances than barking orders. On a recent morning, he sat on the sofa and met with a man who launched into a lengthy story about how his son was detained by U.S. soldiers after mistakenly colliding with a military truck. His hands clasped and his gaze intense, Mines heard the man out and then promised to look into the matter.

But as he reclined on the sofa after the meeting and observed other interactions in the room, with Iraqis showing deference to uniformed soldiers, Mines acknowledged that he was dealing with a selective group. The young men in the nearby market who praise the insurgents were not there. Nor were religious leaders who view the occupation as illegitimate.

"I know I'm only getting a narrow slice," he said. "There's a lot we miss. There's no question."

Security restrictions also have kept American contractors from working in Anbar Province. Bechtel Corp. is not rebuilding schools here as it is elsewhere. The Research Triangle Institute is not leading democracy-building workshops here.

The lack of reconstruction activities has hindered American efforts to reach out to Sunnis, Mines said. "We keep telling them we're here to help," he said, "but it's tough when they don't see the same work going on here that's happening elsewhere in Iraq."

Mines tackles his job with a degree of candor and creativity unusual within the politicized bureaucracy of the CPA. He said U.S. forces lacked "ground truth" on the dynamics of the resistance. More insurgent activity is driven by simple anger at the occupation -- instead of Baathist loyalty -- "than we'd like to admit," he added.

At a recent meeting between CPA staffers and Iraqi political leader Ahmed Chalabi, who favors taking a hard line against former Baathists working in the government, Mines was the only person in the room to suggest more emphasis needed to be placed on reconciliation, according to people who attended the session.

Mines said he believed that finding a way to allow some former Baathists to return to work was a key component of promoting stability in Anbar, where thousands of people belonged to the party.

"We need to get the Sunnis involved," he said. "If not, we'll never end the violence."

Bridge to the Community

Mines recently decided the first step toward building more support for Anbar's government would be to form a new provincial council. He concluded that the current 51-member council, established by the military in July, had too many members from Ramadi and not enough from the rest of Anbar, a province the size of Wyoming that stretches from Baghdad's western fringe to Iraq's border with Syria and Jordan.

His initial hope, he recalled, was that political parties, trade unions and civic organizations would take an active role in governance, as they have in Baghdad and parts of southern Iraq where rival Shiite Muslims are in the majority. But his hope was unfulfilled. In the south, parties blossomed from underground Shiite movements that opposed the Sunni-dominated Baath Party. But in Anbar, most parties are recent creations, started either by exiles or by aspiring local politicians. Few Sunnis have rushed to join.

"People have a very bad feeling about parties after the Baath Party," said Abdul Karim Burgis, Anbar's governor.

Faced with no other option, Mines said he had been forced to turn to the same coterie of elderly men upon which Hussein -- and Iraqi leaders before him -- relied: tribal sheiks.

Of the 40 seats on the new provincial council, Mines said he intended to reserve 10 for tribal leaders; the other 30 would be chosen through town meetings across Anbar. In another move to win over the sheiks, he also plans to form a separate tribal council that will advise the provincial council and the governor.

Iraq's tribal chieftains are defined by opportunism as much as tradition. Many of Anbar's leading sheiks accepted cars, money and other favors from Hussein in return for their loyalty. Many of them have chosen to support the Americans now, Mines said, simply because they want American reconstruction contracts.

"I don't have a lot of other options," Mines said. "The sheiks are a valuable bridge into the community."

A key uncertainty in the gamble Mines has taken is whether or not the sheiks will deliver. Thus far, the sheiks have not lessened the resistance, prompting questions about whether tribal leaders are doing enough to bring their followers in line. But sheiks in Ramadi insist their power only goes so far. "We try, but we cannot control every one of our members," said Bazia Gaoud, the stout leader of the Bunimir tribe.

Mines regards the sheiks as helpful interlocutors but not all-powerful American agents. "It's the traditional Bedouin democracy," he said. "They're actively dealing with us on behalf of their constituents."

Being 'Iraqicized'

"A sheik has no power without contracts," Mahenna said as he puffed on a cigarette. "If I do not provide for my people, they will not cooperate with me."

When Mahenna, who leads the Bu-Alwan tribe, heard that Mines was looking for a contractor to tear down the Baath Party headquarters and build a park dedicated to peace, the sheik swung into action. He had his construction company -- one of several businesses he owns -- draw up four sealed bids for Mines, ranging from $75,000 to $120,000.

As he handed over envelopes, Mines recalled him saying, "I hope you'll be fair to me."

When Mines opened the bids, he was floored. Other contractors in Ramadi had offered to do the job for around $20,000, he said.

"It was just way out of the ballpark," he said.

But Mines was reluctant to spurn Mahenna, a suave man with a physics degree and extensive political connections in Anbar. So Mines, who has the authority to issue contracts up to $100,000 without higher approval, made an exception. Instead of choosing the lowest bidder, he called in Mahenna and began to negotiate. He finally bargained him down to $35,000.

"When we have a tribal issue at stake, we do a controlled bidding process to make sure the contract goes to the right person," he said.

His decision pleased the American military commander in charge of patrolling Ramadi. "Keith has had a real eye-opener," said Lt. Col. Hector Mirabile of the 1st Battalion of the Florida National Guard's 124th Infantry Regiment. "He came in with this American methodology of awarding contracts with a fair and impartial process. But when you have sheiks running the show, everyone wants their money."

Mirabile, a major in the Miami police force, said Mines had "become the consummate politician" since arriving in Ramadi. "He's been Iraqicized."

'Big Contracts Are Coming'

Mines formally awarded the contract to Mahenna on Thursday at a small ceremony in the reception room Mines built. Twenty-two other contracts also were handed out -- totaling nearly $1 million.

After the event was over, Mahenna sulked. "This is not enough money for me," he said. "I was good to the coalition forces, but they didn't treat me in a special way. Keith must do more to reward the people who are helping him."

A few minutes later, as Mines walked downstairs, Mahenna followed, his red-and-white headdress flapping.

"Thirty-five thousand is nothing," Mahenna told Mines, in an openly complaining tone. "What am I going to tell my people?"

"You're going to tell them we have a park," Mines responded.

"It's not enough," Mahenna protested.

"The big contracts are coming," Mines said. "We're just getting started."

With that, Mahenna pulled out three envelopes from his leather folder. Inside were bids for other contracts. "These I want for me," he said, thrusting the envelopes at Mines.

Then Mahenna got in his Mercedes and drove away.

"Dealing with the sheiks isn't easy," Mines said as he watched the car pull out of the parking lot. "But we don't have another choice."

washingtonpost.com



To: MSI who wrote (21148)12/23/2003 4:04:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
Rove has to be happy. He couldn't have better numbers to ride into next year. Your remark about Poll numbers not counting this early is what I say when I am on the short end. :>)

Bush Gets Year-End Boost in Approval
Poll Shows Dean Surging Among Democratic Rivals

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A01

Growing optimism about the economy and a spike in support for going to war in Iraq have given President Bush a sharp year-end boost in his approval ratings, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, suggesting that the president is in a strong position politically as he looks toward his reelection campaign next year.

The boost for Bush comes after the capture of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and a succession of brighter economic indicators that helped to reverse a decline in his ratings that began in the early fall. His overall approval rating stands at 59 percent in the poll, the highest since August, when increased U.S. casualties and terrorist attacks in Iraq led the public to question his policies.

The poll also shows former Vermont governor Howard Dean surging ahead of his rivals in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, cementing his status as the party's front-runner a month before the first major contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire. But when matched against the president, Dean fares badly, both in a hypothetical trial heat and on who is trusted to handle both national security and domestic issues. Even many Democrats said they still know little about Dean or his views.

The poll findings show why many Democrats are nervous about Dean as a potential candidate against Bush. They also underscore the concern within the party that, because of the heavily front-loaded primary and caucus calendar, a Democratic nominee may effectively be picked before party activists outside a few early states have had a chance to evaluate the candidates and participate in the decision.

The poll also shows greater confidence in Bush's handling of both Iraq and the economy. On Iraq, three in five (60 percent) said they approve of how he is dealing with events there, compared with 48 percent in mid-November, and 59 percent said the war was worth fighting, up six points in a week.

Americans were evenly divided over whether Bush has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq (48 percent to 47 percent), but that marks an improvement for Bush after four months of net negative assessments on that question. Nearly seven in 10 want the president to give the United Nations and other countries a larger role in the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

On the economy, a bare majority (51 percent) approve of Bush's performance, the first time he has been above 50 percent since late April. The new poll found that 42 percent of Americans rate the economy as "good" or "excellent," up from 33 percent in late October. The percentage who rate the economy as "not so good" or "poor" (57 percent) is the lowest since just before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

By almost 4 to 1, more Americans said they expect their family financial situation to improve over the next year than said it would deteriorate.

The public has a more negative view of Bush's handling of key domestic issues. Despite the passage of legislation that adds a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, just 36 percent approve of how he has dealt with that issue. His rating on education (47 percent) is the lowest of his presidency and the first time he has dipped below majority support. Bush's ratings on the federal deficit and the cost and availability of health insurance improved somewhat but remain negative overall.

Nor does Bush rate highly on one of his central campaign promises from 2000: bringing needed change to Washington. The Post-ABC poll shows a country sharply divided on that issue, and more so than it was at this time last year. Despite that assessment, a solid majority (58 percent) said Bush has been more of a uniter than a divider at home, but on his impact on the country's image abroad, almost three in five say things have deteriorated during his presidency.

Bush and many of his key policies continue to divide Americans deeply along party lines. Nine in 10 Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing as president -- a view shared by one out of three Democrats. Six in 10 political independents believe Bush is doing a good job, a significant improvement since mid-October, when fewer than half of those swing voters had a favorable view of the president's performance.

Similarly, nearly nine in 10 Republicans say Bush is doing a good job managing the economy and handling the situation in Iraq, while lopsided majorities of Democrats disagree.

The higher approval ratings on Iraq and the economy help to make Bush a stronger candidate for reelection. Asked whether they would vote for Bush or an unnamed Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, 50 percent of those surveyed said Bush while 41 percent said the Democrat. Throughout the fall, the public was either evenly divided on that question or tilted narrowly toward the Democrat.

In the Democratic race, the poll shows dramatic gains for Dean in a month that included his receiving the endorsement of former vice president Al Gore and a growing list of Democratic elected officials and the continuation of his aggressive grass-roots campaign operation.

Asked to choose among the nine candidates for the Democratic nomination, 31 percent of registered Democrats said they favored Dean, up from 20 percent a week ago and 15 percent in October. No other Democrat reached double digits.

Although he is known as the candidate of the antiwar Democrats, Dean draws roughly equal support from Democrats who believe that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost and from those who believe it was, another sign of his broadening support. A solid majority (60 percent) of Democrats continue to say they believe the United States should not have gone to war.

But Dean's strength against his rivals masks how little Democratic voters know about him. More than half of Democrats surveyed said they know "hardly anything" or "nothing" about Dean's experience, leadership capabilities or positions on the issues.

The Post-ABC poll suggests that Dean's recent surge has come disproportionately from Democrats who do not closely identify with their party. In mid-October, Dean claimed the support of one in six Democratic-leaning independents and an equal proportion of party rank and file. Today, he gets significantly more support from independent Democrats (35 percent) than he does from party faithful (26 percent).

As a candidate in the general election, Dean starts well behind Bush in the public's estimation. In an early test of strength, 55 percent of those surveyed said that if the election were held today, they would vote to reelect the president, and 37 percent said they would favor Dean. No other Democrat was tested against Bush in the Post-ABC poll.

Dean's Democratic rivals have warned that the former governor's lack of foreign policy experience would hurt him in a general election against Bush, and when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. Even on the kind of domestic issues that normally favor Democrats, such as Social Security, health care and education, Bush bests Dean by 50 percent to 39 percent.

washingtonpost.com



To: MSI who wrote (21148)12/23/2003 12:16:57 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
This is your guy's version of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Glad to know there will be a big change in secrecy if he gets in. :>)

Dean seeks distance from suit
Won't file answer; leaves matter to AG
By Glen Johnson and Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff, 12/23/2003

EXETER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said yesterday that he would not file an answer -- due in Washington County Superior Court in Vermont today -- to a lawsuit against him demanding that he unseal papers from his governorship, and instead would leave the matter to his friend William Sorrell, the current attorney general in Vermont.

"We decided to take the campaign completely out of this," Dean said in a brief interview after a Town Hall meeting in Exeter.

Asked whether he would challenge a request that the case be expedited on the court docket, Dean said, "We have just completely pulled ourselves out of this. Whatever Sorrell wants to do, he can." Dean appointed Sorrell to the post.

Dean is one of four defendants named in the lawsuit brought by the conservative-leaning group Judicial Watch. The other three are the State of Vermont; the state archivist, Gregory Sanford; and the secretary of state, Deborah Markowitz.

Michael McShane, an assistant attorney general in Vermont, said the state would file a response on behalf of Sanford and Markowitz. He said he did not know whether his office would file an answer on Dean's behalf, though he said it was likely because "the actions he took that are complained about were taken while he was still governor."

Dean's rivals pounced on his refusal to file an answer, saying Dean was wrongly placing responsibility for the records' release on the attorney general.

"There's one person who can open these records to public inspection, and that's Howard Dean," said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. "Dean says voters have the power. If Dean really means what he says, he should trust voters with the information in those 145 boxes."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said Dean was putting off the inevitable. "Howard Dean is going to have to respond in court sooner or later, and he won't be able to hide behind behind the attorney general or the secretary of state."

Dean's refusal echoes the position his campaign has staked since the lawsuit was filed against him Dec. 4. Shortly after the filing, the campaign put out a statement saying: "A judge will now decide which documents should be released. This removes the issue from the context of a political campaign and puts it in the hands of an unimpeachable third party, where it belongs."

The lawsuit contends that Dean should make public 145 boxes of documents that he sealed for 10 years upon leaving the governor's office. Dean says the documents are subject to executive privilege. Judicial Watch alleges that he is concealing the documents for political advantage as he seeks the presidency.

When he left office, Dean explained his reasons for sealing the documents in an interview on Vermont Public Radio. "Well, there are future political considerations," Dean said. "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

He has since said the comment was meant jokingly.

The issue of Dean's records has become fodder for rivals and Republicans. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut recently ran a television ad in New Hampshire that criticized Dean's handling of the records issue, saying, "We Democrats are better than that." Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, attacked him in a recent speech, saying Dean's statements about his records "were completely at odds with all the facts."

Meanwhile yesterday, Dean said President Bush should call Congress back into session this week so it can pass an extension of unemployment benefits for an estimated 90,000 who lost them Sunday. During the first six months of next year, more than 2 million unemployed people across the country will lose the extra assistance unless Congress acts. In Massachusetts, 2,500 workers a week will lose their benefits, according to government statistics studied by a congressional committee and several economic analysis groups.

Congress would not agree to an extension before it adjourned for its holiday recess.

Dean said restoring the benefits would cost about $1 billion a month and could be paid with an estimated $20 billion reserve in the unemployment trust fund.

"Cutting people off at Christmas is the hallmark of an insensitive administration that's much more in tune with the needs of American corporations and multilateral corporations than they are in tune with ordinary American working people," Dean said.



To: MSI who wrote (21148)12/23/2003 12:20:15 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
Oliphant is a major Liberal, and even he has problems with him.

THOMAS OLIPHANT
Dean's campaign depends on enemies
By Thomas Oliphant, 12/23/2003

WASHINGTON

HOWARD DEAN attacked Bill Clinton without meaning to last week because his thinking about domestic policy is muddled on the occasions when it isn't simply inadequate.

That is because there is often more pure politics in Howard Dean than the leader of a grass-roots movement is prepared to acknowledge. Occasionally, it slips out under the general heading of candor -- the initial explanation for all those secret records in Vermont (tongue allegedly in cheek) was to deny ammunition to the opposition; the explanation for his flip-flop in now opposing the transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada is that he is running for president.

Most of the time, the political strategy that shines through, also acknowledged by the good doctor on occasion, is that angry Americans who detest President Bush make up the core of his especially partisan Democratic constituency and that he is intends to add other elements of the party's base to his coalition before reaching out to a broader audience.

In his most important attempt to outline his approach to domestic affairs -- in New Hampshire last week -- Dean said that what he has learned about America over the past year of campaigning is that people are angry, despairing, and disconnected from the country's large public and private institutions.

This is a virtual mirror image of the politics that drives President Bush's political operation from a different ideological mooring.

This kind of politics requires enemies against whom to mobilize. For a year, Dean's campaign has made it very clear that the enemies are not just conservatives. They also permeate the Democratic Party, and they must be crushed as permanently as the right-wingers. He tells his followers that they have the power not only to "take back" the country but to take back the party as well.

From whom? Well, for starters there are the "Washington Democrats," also known as the "Washington politics as usual club."

Where Iraq is concerned, this aspect of Dean's war is familiar. Rather than explain why he was willing to accept Saddam Hussein's regime as the price for not invading Iraq last winter, Dean attacks all his major opponents for being Bush toadies. He also uses a straw man by asserting that "the capture of one very bad man does not mean this president and the Washington Democrats can declare victory in the war on terror."

No one is, of course, but it helps Dean avoid talking about the real issue.

In domestic affairs, enemies are also required. I am convinced that he did not intend to strike out at Bill Clinton; the ex-Clintonites who are supporting Dean are people who dealt with him when he was governor and worked on last week's oration, and they are persuasive in arguing he was not specifically attacking the former president or his record.

What is so fascinating, however, is that this need for enemies -- for a domestic equivalent of people playing footsy with Bush on Iraq -- overrode mature judgment. Dean's words make sense only as an attack. Noting the Clinton phrase from the 1996 State of the Union address ("The era of big government is over"), Dean promised a "new era" -- "not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families."

Dean's rhetoric imagines a domestic party enemy that doesn't and didn't exist. In his damage control frenzy, moreover, he made it clear he wouldn't dare even try to make such an argument explicitly.

Oddly, what he did do, in a formulation based a new social contract, is reveal huge gaps in his thinking and one difference with his opponents on taxes that he can only deal with (like Saddam Hussein) through the use of a straw man.

The third of four components in Dean's new social contract is retirement security. Saving is so important that he has announced his intention to propose something to encourage saving soon.

There's a catchy promise. It was made months ago -- most prominently by Senator John Edwards -- by Dean's evil opponents.

On taxes, Dean has come up with a new way of avoiding the fact that in proposing the repeal of all tax cuts enacted since 2001, he would raise the income taxes of the same working families he allegedly champions.

He calls it the "Bush tax." All Democrats agree that ordinary Americans didn't get much from Bush's tax cuts and that the money they did get was effectively confiscated by higher local property taxes, service cuts by state and federal governments, and higher health insurance premiums.

Dean, however, uses his criticism of the "Bush tax" to hide the fact that its complete repeal would take away its low 10 percent income tax rate as well as its increases in the child tax credit, which would raise ordinary Americans' taxes. What sense does it make to argue that because they didn't get much on '01 and '03 that they should now face higher taxes?

No matter, he has anger and despair to work with, as well as all those enemies in the party. If Dean is indeed headed toward the Democratic nomination, he might want to channel some of that anger toward a less punitive approach to the very people he seeks to represent. His position on Iraq is enough of an albatross.