Billmon says in two posts (first here, second here)what I meant to say the other day in my half-crazed rant about Howard Dean, which is, essentially, I don’t find his remarks altogether offensive, but I do find them to be pretty stupid politically. He has to know how these things are going to get played out in the media.
I don’t mind hardball in politics, but I find it a little silly for the person whose job is to smile a lot, shake hands, and raise money to be picking fights and leading with his chin. It seems pretty clear that Democrats have read their Lakoff, have discussed message control, remember Newt Gingrich’s selective use of wording, realize the polling that Frank Luntz is doing is effective, yet, in the end, haven’t learned a damned thing, which lead me to the conclusion that they anyone too stupid to figure out how the modern political arena functions isn’t bright enough to lead the country. You can disagree with that if you want, but there is a reason we tolerate rigorous campaigns.
It appears that other Democrats recognize Dean’s folly:
Rep. Harold Ford Jr.: “I think perhaps Governor Dean sometimes gets a little excited at the mouth, and says things that are simply not true. It may reach a point where if he can’t find a way to kind of control some of his comments, and temper his comments, it may get to the point where the party may need to look elsewhere for leadership, because he does not speak for me, and I know he does not speak for a majority of Democrats and I dare say Republicans in my home state. I know that other, even Senator Biden and others, have made some stronger comments about him. I look forward to having a chance to sit with him here in the next day or so. I think he’s going to be here in Capitol Hill a little later today to meet with us. I want to ask him directly. Can he contain himself in a lot of ways, and what is his thought process in a lot of these issues because it is not representative of where the party is.”
Rather than savagely attacking Ford and others who recognize that Dean is a loose cannon doing more damage than good, despite how much fun it is to be in full-on angst-ridden attack mode lashing out incoherently (trust me- I know a thing or two about this), Democrats would be wise to get on message, or craft a coherent one if necessary.
In a related note, in the comments section of this post, Hokie challenges me to come up with some middle-of-the-road positions that if Democrats offered, I could support. Putting aside the social issues like civil unions, stem cells, etc., in which I more often than not side with libertarian or Democratic positions, the big one for me would be a return to fiscal sanity.
The spending has to be dealt with, but I am almost certain that the Democrats are as or more ill-suited than the GOP to do that, partly because of their governing philosophy, partly because of the inevitable promises that will have to be made in order for them to win. I thought the Republican party was the party of fiscal restraint, but over the last five years we have shot that hoary old misconception and buried it in the cemetery at midnight. At any rate, I am unimpressed with comments noting that government spending as a percentage of GDP is down, and I am troubled by the exploding deficits.
Democrats being Democrats, I have little faith that their approach will be widespread budget cuts, which leads me to believe that is is almost inevitable that taxes are going to be increased at some point in the future. More likely than not, it will be Democrats that will do it, as Matt Yglesias discussed yesterday in his brand new digs at Talking Points Cafe.
Of course, this is going to be widely resented by Democrats, who are pretty justifiably going to feel that the GOP held the wild party, broke all the lamps, pissed the bed, and then took off leaving the Democrats to change the sheets and air out the mattress. Republicans can protest this and point to the expense of the war and the post-bubble economy all they want, but it still doesn’t explain the Prescription Drug Plan and the 25% increase in social programs. Fiscal responsibility means that you DON’T spend boatloads of money on new social programs (particularly really bad ones which are nothing more than a giveaway to big Pharm) while you are trying to finance a war. And you certainly don’t increase spending dramatically, cut taxes, and then propose several trillion dollar changes in social security and other programs. I fear that the history of this administration, on fiscal policy, at least, is going to be one of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities, and an emphasis on short-term political gain rather than long-term fiscal health. I hope I am wrong.
I can understand the inevitable anger of Democrats regarding this, and Republican protests are going to fall on deaf ears. I think it is pretty clear I am not impressed with the current crop of ‘fiscal conservatives’ in the White House, House, and Senate. That being said, my knee-jerk position is anti-taxes, so I would counsel the appropriate course of action would be to roll back some of the wild spending. With Democrats being Democrats, and already keenly yearning for dramatic increases in health, education, and social insurance programs, that just isn’t going to happen.
At any rate, I am now wildly off the original topic of this post… Discuss.
*** Update ***
For the willfully slow who STILL do not get it, here is exhibit A in how letting the man who is supposed to be quietly fund-raising and whipping up the troops lash out indiscriminately and pointlessly is not good for Democrats:
Behind schedule after a delayed flight, Ken Mehlman last night rushed into a room at the ornate Duquesne Club, Downtown, to address a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
“First of all, let me say to my fellow Christians, it’s good to be here,” the Republican national chairman said, cheerfully fanning the partisan flame ignited by his opposite number’s comment earlier in the week that Republicans were “pretty much a white, Christian party.”
Jibes at the remark by Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean were a staple of the hastily arranged gathering of about 50 GOP partisans. The event underscored the partisan spat, but coalition member Joe Weinroth, the GOP candidate for mayor of Pittsburgh, insisted that its timing was coincidental. “Despite those rantings, this was going to go on anyway,” he said.
Even Deannow sort of gets it:
An unapologetic Dean was on Capitol Hill in Washington yesterday, rebutting the criticisms of his remarks that have come from Republicans and even some members of his own party.
“You know, I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republican want, and that’s a diversion,” Dean told the Associated Press after a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Dismissing the week’s controversy as “a media circus,” Dean said, “What we’re focused on is how to have a decent Social Security system, how to have a strong national defense, how to have jobs in America again and how to deal with incredibly high gasoline prices and get a decent energy bill that will actually do something about gas prices.”
Again, this is not rocket science, but if you read the comments below it is brimming with idiotic ‘stop picking on Dean’ nonsense. Dean should stop providing people knives to stick in his back and get down to fund-raising, smiling passively, and assuring contributors that the Democrats have a good chance in 2006. Not running around popping off at the mouth indiscriminately.
I don’tknow why this is so hard for some of you Democrats to understand, but I am beginning to recognize why you are now entrenched as the minority party.