In the political crowd I used to run with, people would say things like “I think Eric Massa is the second coming, Howard Dean was the first” (that is close to a verbatim quote). A lot of these people were really pissed when Obama didn’t give Dean a key position in the cabinet (they wanted him as head of HHS).
I like Howard Dean a lot better than I like Eric Massa, at this point, but they’re both hot heads who have their own agenda. And they’re both back-stabbers.
I thought Dean’s comments that “Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago” were beyond stupid for a number of reasons. First, because Bush would never have tried to get something like health care through. Second, because Bush’s two big pushes for difficult domestic legislation (Social Security privatization, immigration reform) failed. Third, because what is the point of saying things like that? If you cared about health care reform, wouldn’t you support some kind of actual legislation instead of whining about what you think Bush would have done?
And the same thing here, of course: what’s the point of Dean making these remarks? Has he thought about the issue to the point where he feels strongly this way? If so, he’s an idiot. If not, he’s an opportunist.
Once and for all, can everyone stop holding up Dean up as a TRUE PROGRESSIVE that Obama shits on?
zhak
I’m not defending Dean, but my take on the comment is that he’s saying that Bush managed to shove through whatever the hell he wanted in the way of legislation, with the Republicans largely marching in (goose) step, and oftentimes with at least a handful of pseudo-Dems providing political cover. Sometimes a lot more than a handful, too, as I recall.
Whereas Obama … welllllllllllllllll …
Cacti
“Progressives” Howard Dean and Anthony Weiner come off as cowardly equivocators on an issue of fundamental civil liberties.
My heroes. (barf)
AnotherBruce
I can admire Howard Dean for what he has done and still accept the fact that he says stupid shit, everybody except me says “stupid shit”.
See what I mean?
DougJ
@zhak:
But he didn’t shove through all the legislation he wanted. That didn’t happen. He got a bunch of stuff through that everyone knew was easy to pass — tax cuts, war declaration. You could argue that Medicare Part D had to be shoved through, but I would argue that it’s not that hard for Republicans to pass entitlement expansions. And Nancy Pelosi would have passed that one without holding the vote open for hours.
Svensker
Hey, who you calling “everyone”? I never held him up (altho I did like him better than Rahm, but that’s not hard).
Cris
And as DougJ points out, there are two major counterexamples that put the lie to that narrative.
The only reason we think that Bush rammed his agenda through Congress is because we want to believe the Democrats were an opposition party.
Kewalo
Have you forgotten the drug bill? Unless my memory is failing me it was presented as health care reform.
That bill was hugely expensive, rewarded the drug companes and screwed the public. A typical GOP bill.
And while you may not like Dean, plenty of us give him credit for the 50 state strategy.
ohmmade
Everyone?
Sorry, but plenty of us thought he was a jerk from moment one. And last I remember, Dean isn’t elected for any office at all. So why care about what he says?
DougJ
@Svensker:
In my brick-and-mortar life, all the liberal activists I know say that he is the one true progressive.
DougJ
@Cris:
That’s a very good point.
danimal
Dean was a traditional Democratic governor in Vermont. He was moderate on social issues (Ex: guns), a fiscal hawk and worked well with the legislature to move moderately liberal bills through to passage. Sound familiar?
In other words, a President Dean would almost certainly have been a tremendous disappointment to the progressive base in almost exactly the same way that our current president disappoints them.
I say this as one who supported Dean for many of the same reasons I support Obama. For many, I fear that pragmatism and progressivism have somehow became mutually exclusive.
Cacti
Progressive Howard Dean says:
“Muslims, get your brown asses out of sight. You’re offending the real ‘Muricans.”
beltane
Howard Dean was a very good governor who was also considered a rather conservative Democrat by Vermont standards (contrary to popular belief, VT is not the San Fransisco of the East). Third-party challenges from the left were routine, and I believe he tacitly supported the candidacy of our current governor, the Republican Jim Douglas, over that of his lieutenant governor, who was far more liberal.
Dean was also known to be somewhat less than tactful and rather preachy at times (his habit of pointing his finger at people as he spoke was widely laughed at). From what I have observed of him over the years, he is hardly an opportunist. He does, however, have a nasty habit of shooting off his mouth without giving thought to what he is actually saying. I guess this makes him fall into the idiot, rather than the opportunist camp.
Zifnab
The big social security push didn’t start until after the ’04 election. Bush was at the peak of his power in ’02-’03, and he did successfully push through two major tax cuts, two foreign wars, and one truly vile PATRIOT Act. Siting Bush’s second term failures seems a bit insincere, given the two Presidents are far more comparable in their first terms.
Dean pushed passionately for progressive health care. More than that, his leadership in the DNC and his Fifty State Strategy gave us the overwhelming majority in House and Senate that made the health care vote possible.
If he wasn’t at his most eloquent or effective 100% of the time, please find me a politician that was. Nancy Pelosi was one part commando and one part saint during the HCR debates and even she had her fuck-ups.
Absolutely not. Go fuck yourself.
Zandar
Howard Dean makes bad decisions.
There’s a shocker.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@zhak:
Democrats don’t march in lockstep, and there is no GOP equivalent to the Blue Dogs. Obama tried to bring Olympia Snowe and her sidekick into that role, they wouldn’t budge. What’s complicated about this. One thing that pisses me off is bloggers who cite every new idiocy by Judd Gregg as proof that Obama’s a secret Republican. Obama tried to get him out of the Senate.
On topic: Especially amusing were all the PUMAs who adopted “Howard” as their pet victim, apparently forgetting when the Clintons tried to throw Dean under the bus (couldn’t resist) in favor of…. Harold Ford. Now there’s some true progressivism.
DougJ
@Zifnab:
I liked the 50 state strategy, but he was not a great fundraiser at the DNC. I don’t think he was as great a head of the DNC.
beltane
@danimal: Many people in Vermont used to call Dean “a good little Republican”. He was far more bipartisan than Obama, and far to the right of Bernie Sanders. He equivocated on the Civil Unions issue until the out of state religious nuts descended on Vermont like a plague of locusts, forcing his hand on the issue.
mistermix
What a feckless coward.
Just Some Fuckhead
Never was a Howard Dean fan for a number of superficial and trite reasons so please don’t conflate us all. One can be less than thrilled with Obama without being part of some demonized “other”. I was one of the first million Obama donors and worked in my local precinct to get him elected. I’m entitled to my disappointment.
Cacti
@DougJ:
The 50-state strategy was responsible for electing many of those Blue Dogs that the firebaggers bitch about endlessly.
And somehow, Howard Dean gets a pass for that from them.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
By “everyone” I presume you mean the half dozen people you used to run with.
beltane
@DougJ: Dean’s chairmanship of the DNC was very good for morale and inspired a lot of small, first time donors (like me) to give to their party. He was a hell of a lot better than losers such as Terry McAuliffe or Harold Ford.
Zifnab
@DougJ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Fundraising_strategies
Obama tapped strongly into the Howard Dean fundraising network and patterned many of his own fund raising activities after those of the Dean Netroots.
If you’re calling Dean out on his fundraising skills, you are completely off base. He was a fund raising machine.
Tyro
, he’s an opportunist.
What opportunities is he seizing? He’s not being an opportunist on the Cordoba House, he’s being a coward.
Cris
I just don’t believe that the majority of Democrats in Congress were particularly opposed to any of those things.
DougJ
@Zifnab:
Compare the DNC performance 2004–2008 with the DCCC and the DSCC, relative to their counterparts on the Republican side. Or compare it to Obama’s in 2008. It wasn’t that good. Here’s one article about the latter.
DougJ
@Cris:
I am afraid you are right.
Cacti
I’ll be waiting patiently for Keith-O to name Howard his “Worst Person in the World”.
Svensker
In the meantime, MoDo’s got one of her columns that make you want to throw things.
I think there are about 16 people in America whom I still like.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@DougJ: I don’t know, the Dems who did vote against the Iraq War–Byrd, Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin, Graham, a few other standouts–were strongly opposed to it. Same with the tax cuts, IIRC. The PATRIOT act was a moment of mass hysteria. I can’t defend it.
Tsulagi
@Zifnab: @Zifnab:
Oh yeah, using facts and context. Fucking Professional Left.
Allison W.
Fucking spot on.
cat48
Breaking: DO IT LIVE!!!!! Combat troops withdrawing from Iraq……..msnbc or nbc
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cacti: The Rachel Maddow will probably let him have it, with a calm politesse that is far more effective than jowl-quivering bluster.
DougJ
@Tsulagi:
He really wasn’t a great fundraiser, not relative to the competition. The DNC got brutalized by the RNC in 2008, for example.
Martin
Can we please dispense with purity assassinations? Nobody is going to bat 1.000 on the progressive/liberal/whateveryouwanttocallyourselves manifesto, and whatever issues causes you to be out of the mainstream of the party doesn’t immediately cause you to lose your standing.
Yeah, Dean is wrong, and yeah, Dean says stupid shit sometimes, but so does Obama, and so did Kennedy (all of ’em) and so does Bernie Sanders, and so do they all. So yeah, today Dean is an idiot. Big fucking deal.
beltane
@Svensker: We have Obama, Bloomberg, and a lot of crazy people and cowards. I can’t wait for Giuliani to weigh in on this.
kindness
OK, OK…Howard was a dumb ass when he went on and said what he did. Even if he meant the more gentle ‘bush43 was able to ram anything he wanted down America’s throats’ (man, those repubs have their homoerotic talking points down, eh?), A) it isn’t true – see Social Security & B) well, let’s just stick with A, OK?
I still like Howard Dean way more than many. primarily because he is less politically correct. Yea, he’s tone deaf and dumb some times but he’s an honest tone deaf & dumb guy. What’s not to like?
PS – When do we libs get to punch any Faux News hosts we want? Dibbs on Glenn Beck!
Comrade Kevin
Dean’s just trying to broaden the Democratic party so it’s a comfortable place for the guys with a confederate flag on their trucks.
KCinDC
I suggest a hard-and-fast rule against getting worked up about anything edited by Breitbart. So far I’ve seen no other source for the Dean “mosque” quotes, so as far as I’m concerned they don’t exist. If they’re real, we’ll hear about them soon enough from someone who doesn’t have a record of manufacturing lying videos to smear people.
Guster
The question, I think, is: how come so many Democrats hopped on board Bush’s insanity, and how come so few Republicans hop on board Obama’s sanity. I understand that there are all sorts of structural reasons (and the media) such as committee chairmanships, but I also think that the Bush White House was incredibly good, truly frighteningly good, at setting the terms of the debate (and the media).
Bush pushed through unpopular policies. He failed a bunch, but he succeeded a bunch, too–at implementing shit people didn’t like. He fought like hell for his unpopular goals. I think that’s the context. Bush pushed us into a horrific war with Oceania, for no particular reason. He kicked Dem ass until they got on board. He didn’t always win, but sometimes. And he was pushing the ball uphill.
Allison W.
@Cacti:
I bow to your superhuman level of patience.
Guster
@Martin: Yes.
J.W. Hamner
@Cris:
Yeah, I mean the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT act was Russ Fiengold… that had nothing to do with Bush’s “legislative strategery”.
The tax cuts are a better argument, since they both passed through reconciliation with 50… but since they stand a good chance of expiring, at least in part, because of the choice to use reconciliation, it’s debatable how great a strategy that was.
Just Some Fuckhead
Why exactly do we have to rewrite the history of Dean because he said something stupid again? It’s possible to appreciate what he did in the past and recognize he occasionally says stupid shit. Biden, anyone?
soonergrunt
I’m waiting for the self-punching hippies. Not very patiently, I admit.
I am rather sick and tired of that faction of the party that judges everyone by whether or not one hews to a dogma rather than whether or not one actually gets things done or operates in the real world.
America is not, and never has been a ‘center-right country’ but nor is it particularly far to the left as a polity.
Please show me somebody far enough out on the left to actually please the complainers and gripers who can actually get things done in today’s political climate.
Until then, please, hippies, punch yourselves.
priscianusjr
@beltane:
I agree. Evidently Dean does have a penchant for saying stupid things now and then, and I think some of the more recent ones may come from personal animosity to Obama. But it has taken a while for many of us to see the pattern. The Democratic Party in 2004 was in desperate need of a visionary not afraid to say what he thought. Dean did a lot of good for the Democratic Party. I didn’t understand why Obama and Rahm Emanuel gave him the cold shoulder, But I think I do now. He’s not a team player, he would have been a liability. He’s still unafraid to say what he thinks, it’s just that what he thinks is sometimes petty and counterproductive. Now he’s just taking pot shots and it diminishes him.
Martin
@DougJ: The DNC got brutalized because the DNC set the operation up to make it easy to steer contributions directly to candidates. The RNC pooled it and distributed it centrally. Dean’s model worked much better than the Republican model, though if you choose to do your accounting in a specifically narrow way, it would look like it worked poorly.
Svensker
@beltane:
Oh, he did, a long time ago. It’s a “desecration”.
Scumbag.
Davis X. Machina
Precious little kicking required for half of them….
Uncle Clarence Thomas
I don’t understand why it’s OK for a balloonbagger to criticize a PINO (Progressive in name only) to their right, but not OK for a “firebagger” to do it.
cat48
Just remember the black guy stood up for the 1st Amendment & for not just applying it to WHITE MALES! The white dude is a disappointment to me in this case (and that includes the majority of the Congress.) Doesn’t mean he has not been good on other items, but a disappointment Depressing! Brown folks shouldn’t be that scary to folks. Time for another race speech, also, too.
Rachel is in Iraq and she seems sorta happy! Not elated. She’s earning that Conkrite Award!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Just Some Fuckhead: It’s also possible to appreciate the fact that this post is not just about Dean, it’s also about the tendency of a large segment of the liberal blogosphere (I didn’t say “everyone” and I’m not talking about “you”) to whip themselves into a frenzied hero-worship because of one speech, or one column, or one issue, and to wallow in fantasies about how much better everything (used advisedly) if Candidate X (Hillary, Dennis, Bradley, RFK and for all I know they said the same thing about Charles Pinckney) had won, or if Obama would just act like X (Anthony Weiner, Howard Dean, Alan Grayson….)
Just Some Fuckhead
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Page views.
Svensker
@Guster:
What “unpopular” policies did he get through? Bombing Muslims has never been unpopular in the Congress. I can’t think of anything else — the unpopular stuff I know of failed dismally.
Allison W.
@Guster:
I wasn’t paying attention during bush’s presidency so I can’t say why Dems cooperated with him more easily. I can tell you that there is a huge payoff for republicans when they go up against Obama. Look how much money they have in their war chest from their base, corporations and billionaires. Look what happened when Joe wilson (?) yelled YOU LIE! – he raised 1 million dollars. Pluas, all the pollsters have been saying for a very long time that the GOP is going to be the big winner this Fall. Sure, the GOP is losing minority voters, but the payoff is much sweeter.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah, and that same generalization can be applied to “the other side” in the near-constant progs vs. realists wars.
Frank
@Zifnab:
Don’t you think bush had even more power in ’05? He had just been re-elected, he had just gone from 51-49 to 55-45 in the Senate and likewise in the House. As bush himself claimed “I’ve got political capital and I’m going to spend it”.
And bush did fail in getting Social Security privatized in ’05. Something to remember for those who like to compare Bush to Obama.
Allison W.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I
exactly. tell me though, Eric Massa? really?
JWL
Bush lauded bipartisanship with a cynical sneer. Obama pursued bipartisanship with high hopes. For crissakes, look how many GOP holdovers litter his administration. Democratic and independent voters resoundingly rejected the GOP over the course of two consecutive elections. Obama instead stupidly chose to mollycoddle them. He should have taken a flamethrower to republican appointees and installed democratic loyalists in their place. He refused, and the most charitable explanation is also the most politically damning: he was naive.
One example: How tough would it have been to repudiate decades of republican slander that democrats are lilly-liveried on matters of national security by replacing Robert Gates? Especially in light of the republican party’s disastrous foreign and defense policies that played no small part in catapulting the democrats to power?
Dean was addressing a stone cold fact. The Obama administration has consistently upheld the fiction that the GOP is an honorable opposition. They are not. If Dean is overstating what Bush might have accomplished with the congressional majorities that Obama has enjoyed, it’s not by much.
cat48
Is there anyone cuter than correspondent, Richard Engle & Rachel together reporting?
Nick
@Kewalo:
which gave us the very blue dog majority that weakened the healthcare bill.
Cacti
@cat48:
Indeed.
The black guy’s white “allies” either ran for the hills (Schumer, Weiner) or joined hands with the bigots (Dean, Reid).
Davis X. Machina
An obvious FINO. And his middle name was Coatesworth — so an elitist on top of it all.
Lev
Remember when people were saying that Dean’s line on healthcare was prepping him for a presidential run against Obama in 2012?
Frankly, I think we need to consider the possibility that, while Dean did and said some impressive things some years ago, now he’s just another media talking head who wants more attention paid to him. That covers everything mentioned here quite nicely.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cacti: Gotta give props to Jerry Nadler. Also Alex Giannoulis (candidate, IL) and while I’m far from his biggest fan, Joe Sestak.
Ron Beasley
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: “There is no GOP equivalent to the blue dogs”
I think historically that was true but the the teabaggers may change that if enough of them manage to get elected that may change.
Lev
@JWL: Horseshit. Gates has been one of the best Defense Secretaries in living memory. What’s more, he’s been pushing back on bloated defense spending harder than anyone in that office in decades. That is supposed to be a liberal priority.
I don’t even think this premise is right. Obama didn’t lose any political capital by appointing Ray LaHood to the cabinet and reappointing Gates, he gained a lot. (Remember those 74% approvals during the transition?) Giving jobs to sane Republicans like Jim Leach, Anne Northup and Chuck Hagel is the right idea, since it shows there’s somewhere for those kinds of folks to fall back on. I don’t think it was mollycoddling so much as trying to bring different perspectives and talented people into the government.
And BTW, Gates is hardly part of the faction responsible for the Iraq War. Read a goddamn newspaper.
NobodySpecial
@Nick: Whereas if we’d have left it to Rahm’s loving care, we would have had half a dozen fewer Senators, and you’d be all aquiver about how your ‘center-right’ country wouldn’t have been for a health care bill anyhow, so Obama would have been right to just not even bring it to the Congress.
Comrade Kevin
@Nick:
And things would be SO much better if those seats had Republicans in them instead, I tell ya! I’m sure they would have voted for abolishing the private insurance industry.
Martin
@Nick: Rather than the very Republican majority that would have passed more tax cuts instead?
Sorry, but if you are trying to get support for some act to be viewed as a failure, you need to make sure the proposed alternative isn’t worse.
Frank
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
It is rather sad when we can count the number of brave Democrats on the number of fingers on a hand on this issue. I guess we can add Obama to those people. Where the hell is Feingold?
Goodness, I have more respect for Mayor Bloomberg, Ted Olson, Grover Norquist and Kathleen Parker than 99% of the Democrats on this issue.
Guster
@Svensker: Oh, I don’t mean unpopular with Congress. I mean unpopular with America.
I read an interesting article about this the other day, how Bush pushed hard for unpopular policies. I’m trying to dig it up. Gimme a few …
Nick
@NobodySpecial:
You know, I would’ve been willing to fall just short of the majority if it means we wouldn’t have to listen to you guys bitching every damn day.
Nick
@Martin: @Comrade Kevin:
I never said I’d rather have a Republican majority, I simply pointed out that you’re all giving Dean props for bringing us the very majority you all bitch about day in and day out.
chaseyourtail
Hint, hint, Keith Olbermann. I’m sorry but KO had his head up Dean’s ass during the entire health care debate. I remember one episode of Countdown where Keith was outraged at the WH for trying to “smear” poor little Deanie-weanie. All Gibbs said was something about the Kill-the-Billers not being rational and Keith went all aggro on him. In the end, Dean looked foolish for insisting that the Public Option would be in the HCR Bill even though he knew the votes weren’t there.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Nick: And I’d be willing to put on a short skirt and shake pompoms for Obama if you Republican ratfuckers would stop mucking up the threads with Jews Control The Media conspiracies and We Live In a Center Right Country narratives.
Pussin
@beltane:
Ummm, Hugo Chavez is to the right of Bernie Sanders…
Nick
@JWL:
This is all HILARIOUSLY ironic considering Dean talked so eloquently about compromising with intolerant bigots today.
Martin
@Nick: I bitch about them? You sure about that? I concede that Nelson isn’t my favorite Senator, but in the end he’s helped a lot more than he’s hurt Dems, and he does a lot more than either Johanns or Hagel (who I consider a quite reasonable Republican) ever have.
No, I don’t bitch about the blue dogs and conservadems. We are infinitely better off with them than with even Collins and Snowe. Sure, I’d rather have another Bernie Sanders, but let’s be real here, okay?
Cacti
Sometimes we all just need to remember…
A public option is more important than the First Amendment.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Martin: Big Jew Media Nick doesn’t know who does what. He’s just here to make sure the fire keeps burning.
Svensker
@Frank:
Apparently he came out pro mosque. See Greenwald’s update.
Zifnab
@Frank:
He lost a lot of popularity on both sides of the aisle by then. That said, he did get the Bankruptcy Bill and the Medicare Plan D bill passed. So, again, that’s not nothing.
Social Security was much harder to move because the other 45 Dem Senators weren’t eager to come along with him. What’s more, there were still a handful of liberal Republican hold outs in ’05. They’d all lost their Senate seats or retired by ’08.
Immigration reform was even worse. Bush lost half his own party in the immigration fight. The fact is that Bush spent a lot of his political capital getting reelected. He came out stronger on paper, but he had a lot of white evangelical conservatives demanding sweeping social overhauls.
Bush was much better on the economic agenda, but the Evangelical heavy Republican House wanted abortion, gays, and Mexican bashing at the front of the agenda. That wasn’t going to pass the Senate and it did a lot of harm to Rove’s 50%+1 electoral strategy.
Bush didn’t have the kind of unlimited mandate in ’05 that he claimed in the years following 9/11.
DougJ
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Thank you. That is the point of this post.
Frank
@Svensker:
Thanks for the update. I hadn’t heard that. At least there is one Democrat I can still believe in.
Michael
I must disagree with your Howard Dean assessment.
I worked in Vermont for many years and saw first hand what he did and, more importantly, what he was capable of when he was governor of the state. The intelligence, drive and moral fiber were/are all there. That has not changed.
He accomplished a lot and should be given credit for that. What I could not help but notice were the constraints he faced when he became a politician on the national stage.
What is very obvious is that there are a different set of rules for those that run for a higher office. His approach to getting Democrats elected nationally was the key for victory during the later years of The Shrub. The wins did not come without a price as he made several enemies within his own party when he used his skills and grass roots oriented personality to accomplish these victories, not least of which
is that idiot James Carville. He never had the backing of the entire Democratic party because of this and as such was never able to obtain anything more than “Democratic presidential hopeful” status. A shame really, if anyone can lay claim to being a true grass roots candidate it is he. Let’s face it, if you don’t have the backing of #1 your entire party, #2 the average “thinking” American and, most important of all, #3 the media you are destined for failure. Historically the Dems have rarely had #1, and have NEVER had #3.
The votes that they usually garner from the the middle class #2 are negated by the GOPs capturing of the bottom twenty, the “single issue” neanderthals that can be
manipulated quite easily with fear and loathing…something the right wing is EXPERT at. Dean never really had a chance and all you see and hear from him now is what the media will let filter out…the gaffs, quotes taken out of context and the yells, nothing of any substance to be sure.
Sheila
I was an enthusiastic supporter of Dean in 2004, largely because of his stance on Iraq and his blunt way of speaking, but I think many of the commenters here have it correct. He was a middle-of-the-road governor, popular in his state, who had some accomplishments under his belt, but nothing particularly radical. And most of the frustrati who lionize him do forget that the 50-state strategy is responsible for many of the Blue Dogs whom they so decry, though I agree with him that it is better to have a bad Democrat in office than any Republican whatsoever at this point in time. However, his recent negative comments accomplish nothing at all to bring about a more progressive agenda, and, in fact, are probably detrimental to it. I am disappointed in him as I expected better.
DougJ
@Allison W.:
He was a terrific candidate. Worked his tail off, said most of the right things, came up with some crazy strategies to throw his opponent off balance.
But he was shitty on HCR (which wouldn’t have hurt him in that district anyway) even before the massage stuff came out.
Frank
@Zifnab:
You captured it well. I think in bush’s view, his biggest priority was privatization of Social Security. And it failed.
Yes, Bush got some things passed in his second term but nothing that would add to his legacy. Obama will also get less important things passed in his second term. But like Bush, his main stuff will already have been passed, ie health care and Wall Street reform.
Zifnab
@DougJ: Read your own article Doug. This was in the middle of the Obama / Clinton slugfest. They come right out and say how not having a candidate has severally hampered fundraising.
What’s more, Obama’s own fundraising apparatus eventually soaked up a lot of the money that could have gone to the DNC. Which shouldn’t particularly matter, since the DNC is largely focused on electing its own party to the Presidency anyway.
The DKos / ActBlue / Netroots fund raising efforts channeled millions of dollars into the hands of Democrats running for House and Senate seats. Howard Dean played a major role in all of that infrastructure development. You can’t poo-poo the man off of a cherry picked article highlighting his weakest moment. Particularly when Obama himself went on to raise more money than any candidate in history.
DougJ
Blue Dogs or no, I still think 50 state was smart.
But I do get the critique that you don’t get a reliable vote when you win some of those marginal races.
DougJ
@Zifnab:
I see where you’re coming from. I will try to research this a bit more, but when I kept up with it at the time, I concluded that Dean was pretty good with small fundraisers but did a weak job with the 46K (or whatever the limit is) whales, who are important for the national committees.
Anya
DougJ, get off Dean’s case, he’s just being true to his 50 state roadmap.
MikeMc
Progressives don’t like to hear this, but Howard Dean says tons of dumb shit. He always has. He’s a darling of the left, but he doesn’t cross any lines. He doesn’t seem to be liked outside of the left. He always parses his words for the left. Which, makes these comments really bizarre.
JWL
Lev: Are you always so emotional when you disagree with someone?
Obama should have shit-canned Gates if for no other reason than political proprieties sake. [see flamethrower remark up-thread]. Or don’t you believe that a democrat exists who is (at least) Gates equal? I for one assume there are democratic candidates that would prove superior.
John McCain advocated cutting back on the bloated Pentagon budget as recently as 2008 (granted, he’s likely changed his mind by now). Hell, Jimmy Carter campaigned on it in 1976 (the bastard double-crossed me, too). It takes no great courage, much less perspicacity, to acknowledge we’re burning billions that would be better spent paying off our debt to China, and that we need to do something about it.
You weren’t reading the newspapers very carefully if you overlooked the political qualities GW Bush required of his political appointees. From those he appointed to the Justice Department, to his appointments that staffed and lived the ‘Imperial Life In The Emerald City’, they were across the board the dregs of our political society.
To be sure, Gates had the brains to oppose the Iraq war. So did the Old Man, and other smart people from the bygone administration. So what? He agreed to supplant Rumsfeld for one reason and one alone– to help salvage the GOP brand name. By keeping him on, Obama helped facilitate that rehabilitation. Gates is still a republican.
And by my lights, today’s republican party represent a domestic enemy.
Nick
@Svensker:
oh so nice of him to finally say something about it.
Nick
@JWL:
good for him. He advocated a lot of respectable things before he went crazyloonytunes
Just Some Fuckhead
@Nick: When asked, an incredibly long 4 days after Obama’s first remarks.
Bob Loblaw
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Not to be a combative dick, but wasn’t that the exact premise of the Obama campaign? Everybody in the last six years in Democrat land have gone headlong into the trap of the cult of personality. Because, apparently, when you don’t, you get Kerrys and Gores and whatever.
So instead we have to deal with Obots and Firebaggers at each others’ throats for ever and ever and ever, without either being able to realize that all their heroes are kinda sorta pieces of shit now and again.
Lev
@JWL: My face betrays no emotion.
I think the argument that Gates is sparking GOP rehabilitation is bogus. Gates is exactly the sort of foreign policy guy the GOP is trying to get rid of. They’re trying to get more Jason Chaffetzes and Paul Ryans into the mix. By keeping Gates on, Obama was able to keep a realist of huge stature on board, neutralizing a lot of right-wing huffery along the way. As it stands, today’s GOP has almost nobody with any power that can seriously mount a foreign policy critique of Obama. Is anyone going to believe Palin’s blather about Putin and Russia? Had Obama given the job to someone else, they’d potentially have one. Plus, Gates is a talented administrator who’s delivered some real results (like the F-42 and DADT). I hardly think a Democratic Secretary of Defense could have done better–indeed, I think Gates’s credibility with the military let him do things that Clinton might not have been able to do.
DougJ
@Bob Loblaw:
I admit Obama is kinda sorta shitty all the time. What bugs me is the “we could have someone much better” stuff. Who? Dean? Hillary? Edwards?
Nick
@Bob Loblaw:
That’s the exact premise of every Democratic campaign.
Nick
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Well five days, but who’s counting. You’d think “Mr. Awesome Defend Our Civil Rights Dude” would be on top of this the moment it became a national issue with the anti-civil rights brigade dominating the airwaves and the public siding with them. You’d think he’d take the opportunity to. what is it you firebaggers call it? lead?, or even the moment his President was being slammed for doing the right thing (which people like him complain he never does), but, hey, five days and only when pressured to, it’s cool…unless you’re Obama, then it makes you a coward.
I’m sure his silence of the issue has nothing to do with the fact he’s tied with a teabagger in polls.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Nick: You made the case it wasn’t in Obama’s purview while now making the case that it is somehow in the purview of the Senator from Wisconsin? Are you fucking stupid?
Nick
@Just Some Fuckhead: yeah, I didn’t say any of that, but ok. It’s funny how Feingold is the great progressive voice that must be listened to when he’s opinionated on something, and just “a Senator from Wisconsin” when he hides under a table.
PanAmerican
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Fitzmas
Certain members of the professional left got tingly in their special place and projected all kinds of crazy onto the Plame case. Patrick Fitzgerald is an incompetent boob.
DougJ
@PanAmerican:
That’s bullshit. The guy’s terrific prosecutor. These cases are tough, but it’s important to do them, both Libby and Blago. No one is above the law.
Bob Loblaw
@DougJ:
Hysterical.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Nick: Yeah, you never said anything when reminded of it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bob Loblaw:
There was some of that, sure, and still is. And a lot of people believed and still believe that Hillary Clinton was Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and The Force all in one tailored pantsuit. Speaking just for me, he was my second-to-last choice (yeah, yeah, I was for Edwards, but only because he was talking about poverty and the wealth divide that I think are the underlying evils of our system, including the Tea Baggers). And FWIW, I liked Gore, I liked Kerry, I liked Bubba (though he probably drives me crazier than any other Dem) and I like Hillary. I’d support any one of them, or Obama, again. Doesn’t mean I don’t see any of their many shared and individual flaws.
JWL
Doug J: I made no mention of “sparking” the rehabilitation of the GOP. I merely said that Gates re-appointment served that purpose.
Corporate dictates wedded to political power is my definition of American fascism. The party of “we extend an apology to BP for the mean spirited behavior of congressional nit pickers” pretty well sums up where the GOP is at as an organization dedicated to perpetuating that form of tyranny.
Gates was tapped to sustain that political movement. He may love children, puppies, and his wife. Above and beyond that, however, leastwise where my interests as an American citizen are concerned, he’s is simply another republican professional.
Cris
Obama-as-we-imagined-him.
Lolis
This is so appropriate for this post:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/18/dean-mosque-resistance/
PanAmerican
@DougJ:
THAT’S bullshit. You can have him back in New York.
DougJ
@Cris:
Yup.
DougJ
@PanAmerican:
I thought he was from Chicago.
EDIT: I remember now, he’s from Queens or something.
FlipYrWhig
The reasons why Bush got many things passed with Democratic support are (1) There are a lot of truly conservative Democrats who basically prefer Republican policies on things like taxation and war; and
(2) Democrats who may not be ideologically conservative are nonetheless easy to cow with the prospect of negative ads depicting them as tax-hikers, or traitors who didn’t do the most they could to keep America safe, or obstructionists who thwarted the will of the people who elected a Republican president, because elections have consequences.
Republicans of a similar profile do not exist. A Republican Senate that includes “moderates” like Castle and Kirk might have to be a bit less intransigent, but I wouldn’t count on it. Mitch McConnell has told them all that they will not suffer at the ballot box by blocking everything, even the good stuff, and judging by the media reports, he looks to be about to be proven right. Democrats _do_ suffer at the ballot box when they block things when those things can be depicted as tax “relief” or safety/security/crime-related.
Socraticsilence
@Kewalo:
You mean the bill that went through the house by a razor thing margin and only passed because the Dem’s couldn’t filibuster something signed off on by the AARP?