Crossposted at DailyKos
But while I have you here, I want to make something very, very, VERY fucking clear:
If voting reform is not the TOP priority in the Democratic agenda, everything else we’ve all been wailing and pondering and screaming and talking calmly about (Social Security, Roe v. Wade, the RWCM, the MYRIAD Republican scandals being uncovered HOURLY)…
All of it means dick. I’m serious. The absurdity of refusing to assert, loudly and repeatedly, that what we want is a way to be ASSURED all votes are counted properly… well, it astounds and infuriates me. Dean mentions it in every speech, it seems — anybody know why???
Because, goddamnit, unless we fix this fucked up, Diebold-Republican stranglehold on the VOTING SYSTEM in this godforsaken fucking country, NOTHING ELSE MEANS DICK.
Now, on to Podvin.
RESURRECTION
By David Podvin
Most highly placed Democratic officeholders are willing to appear in public with the execrable George W. Bush but not with the honorable Howard Dean. Party regulars are appalled that Chairman Dean has begun redefining American politics in stark terms that the Homer Simpsons of this nation can easily understand. From Dean’s perspective, the conservatives who subvert democracy are “bad guys” guilty of perpetrating “evil” and therefore must be “defeated”. The concept of confronting Republicans has long been anathema to corporatist Democrats, so the chairman is under siege by the morally compromised Democratic establishment that would rather have the party abandon principle and lose than behave ethically and win.
The internal opposition to Dean is being led by corporate strumpet Joseph Biden, who has publicly declared that the chairman does not speak for him. Tellingly, in the wake of 9/11 Biden announced, “President Bush now speaks for us all.” The senator represents business interests who resent that Dean is reorganizing the party to provide the rank and file with greater influence. Biden has long been a foil for the right wing, a man so unprincipled that as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee he allowed Republicans to ram through the Supreme Court nomination of the perjurious Clarence Thomas. Smiling Joe is extremely comfortable with the Democrats being a perpetual minority party because capitulation to conservatives is his preferred method of operation, and he vilifies any Democrat who plays to win.
Dean plays to win. The chairman is seeking to provide voters with a clearer contrast between Democrats and Republicans, advocating a populist approach that marginalizes conservatives as economic adversaries of the common citizen. He demands that the Democrats become more aggressive in challenging right wing demagoguery on social issues while refusing to concede the high ground on patriotism and religious faith. Dean is seeking to morph the Democratic team from passive victim into dominant aggressor, and the establishments of both parties hate him for it.
Inevitably, there will be a showdown between Democrats who want their party to serve the working class and those who insist that it serve the upper class. The difference between the populists and the elitists was highlighted by their respective positions on Corporate America’s cherished Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Dean derided the legislation as an assault on consumers by the rapacious financial industry. Biden and other mercantile Democrats embraced the bill as a way to prevent consumers from persecuting multinational conglomerates.
The Democratic congressional contingent is infested with Joe Bidens, amoral careerists who pose as liberals while doing the bidding of robber barons. It is a tragedy for which Democratic primary voters are responsible. Prior to defeating the Republicans, Democrats must first wrest control of our party from the Quislings whom we have elected.
For years, that seemed like a hopeless task, but when the grass roots made Dean chairman over the anguished protests of the Democratic hierarchy it signified things just might be changing. In order to win control of the party, Dean must somehow survive until the next presidential election and then gain an ally in the White House. Survival will not be easy because the Congressional Democrats have chosen the path of accommodation, which historically produces disastrous off-year election results.
If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi guide their troops to an electoral drubbing in 2006, Dean will be the fall guy because the entire governing class is determined to see him go. Right wing spokesmen constantly say the Dean approach will destroy the Democratic Party, something that would never be said in public if they believed it were true. The last thing that conservatives want to face is actual opposition, so for many decades the mantra of Republicans and the corporate media has been that Democrats must be centrist or perish. Should the Democrats lose the 2006 elections, Dean will be scapegoated by the corrupt political/journalistic complex that seeks to perpetuate America’s de facto one party system.
It is therefore crucial for liberals to support the chairman aggressively. All contributions to Democratic candidates should include a note that future donations will be contingent on the recipient’s unyielding support for Dean. Progressive commentators should emphasize that the off-year elections are a Reid/Pelosi production. If things go well, the congressional leaders can claim the credit. But if next year their strategy of capitulation does not produce satisfactory electoral results, it is imperative that Howard Dean be inoculated from the blame so he can survive through the pivotal 2008 presidential campaign.
Dean cannot resurrect the party without the help of a president who shares his determination to transform the Washington Democrats into advocates for the average citizen. With Dean heading the DNC and a liberal reformer in the Oval Office, the Democratic Party would reassume its traditional role as champion of the underdog. Dean’s presence as chairman makes the next presidential nomination especially relevant for people who are disgusted with seeing Democrats defer to Republicans.
Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination because of a concerted push on her behalf by the corporate media, a fact that should set off alarm bells for liberal primary voters who were conned into supporting John Kerry after mainstream journalists declared Dean “unelectable”. Nominating Kerry was a fateful mistake. The only way to have beaten Bush by a cheat-proof margin was to challenge the moral legitimacy of his regime and its benefactors. Dean was the one prominent candidate willing to make that challenge, so Bush’s corporate media allies contrived an absurd scandal involving the doctor being too peppy at a pep rally. Unfortunately, Democratic voters took the bait.
To gain the presidency in 2008, the Democratic nominee must be willing to challenge the moral legitimacy of the conservative movement itself, and that is something Hillary will never do. She is taking exactly the opposite approach, consorting with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay to establish her credentials as a bipartisan centrist. While Dean was enduring the slings and arrows that accompanied opposing the indefensible conquest of Iraq, Hillary was eagerly capitulating to Bush. It cannot be seriously argued that such a bright woman actually believed Bush’s transparently deceitful rationale for the war. Clinton knew what was happening, and she knew it was evil, and for reasons of ambition she was willing to be complicit.
That ethical failure was no aberration. For all the palaver spouted by Republicans that she is a dangerous ideologue, Clinton is just another political climber as she has proven by advocating Democrats establish a dialogue with people who feel religiously compelled to murder doctors. Hillary’s career in public service has been characterized by relentless expediency.
It is insufficient for the Democrats to regain power. That power must be used for collective rather than personal benefit. In the unlikely event that Clinton were to win, a Hillary presidency would be about Hillary first, last, and only, leaving the atrophying Democratic Party to atrophy further still.
Most of the other potential Democratic presidential nominees are also woefully inadequate. John Kerry could not successfully make the case against an incumbent who was an abject failure. John Edwards could not successfully make the case against the most corrupt vice president in American history. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama have about as much chance of being elected president as they have of becoming Imperial Klan Wizard. Evan Bayh is a Democrat only because the Republicans consider him too conservative. And then there is Joe Biden, who is the choice of those nostalgic liberals yearning to relive the 1984 Mondale campaign.
That leaves Al Gore. As a child of the establishment, Gore spent most of his life placing excessive importance on the opinions of the Washington elite, but he has changed. Following the theft of his presidency, Gore has become a born again insurgent whose wisdom and candor make him America’s greatest statesman. The former vice president has repudiated his past unsavory links to the netherworld of the party. Gone is the Democratic Leadership Council Al Gore. In his place is Populist Gore, a fire-breathing champion of the masses who has boldly confronted the conservative menace while other Democrats have cowered.
No one in public life has spoken more forcefully against the reactionaries who are destroying the United States. Gore accused George W. Bush of “lying” about the Hussein-al Qaeda link that was used as a pretext for invading Iraq. Not “receiving faulty intelligence”, as Hillary contends. Not “making an honest mistake”, as Biden claims. Gore said Bush “lied”, and when the corporate media excoriated him for saying it, he unflinchingly said it again.
Gore has labeled as an “American heresy” the effort by theocrats to eliminate the separation of church and state. He has blasted the GOP for “poisoning democracy” with its recurring campaigns of character assassination. He has called the Bush Social Security plan “an immoral scheme designed to defraud taxpayers”. Most subversively, he has agreed with Dean that “corporations have too much power and people have too little”.
A subversive can realistically hope to gain the White House only if he has previously been deemed plausible by the electorate. As an erstwhile presidential nominee, Gore has passed the plausibility test, and his subsequent radicalization does nothing to alter that. He is the one person in America who wants to reform the political system and can convince the public that it must be done.
Gore is reportedly undecided about whether to run in 2008. He should be encouraged to run. Led by honorable people, the Democratic Party could become an instrument of change. The Democrats would still have to operate within the parameters of a society dominated by multinational conglomerates, but even an incremental shift in power back towards individual citizens would be a significant reversal of the prevailing trend.
There have been agonizingly long stretches of time when the Democratic Party has not had a single courageous leader. Now it has two, and that provides a precious opportunity. Given the chance, Howard Dean and Al Gore can reclaim the integrity of a once proud political movement gone astray. These fine men will provide winning leadership, but that is insufficient in the absence of winning followership. Democratic voters must reject the warnings of corporate acolytes and rally behind the agents of change. By supporting Dean now and Gore in 2008, liberals can first take back our party and then take back our country.
You can find dozens of essays by David Podvin at This site. The “More David Podvin” link leads to his latest stuff, but ALL of the links lead you to a veritable nirvana of scathing rants.
And how about that Podvin, eh?
Man, the dude can rant.
If Dean can get it, if Podvin can get it, if Maryscott can get it, if I can get it, if we can get it. . .what’s the effing problem with these jerk off Dems in Washington? Yes, I was standing on my computer chair cheering at Podvin’s words.
We absolutely have to take our country back and it better be one huge effort for 2006 or we may never get it back.
Thanks Maryscott, great stuff!
I’m pretty sure that most of them do get it. The problem is, they don’t want it. They think that their personal ambitions are best served by hoping that the corporate masters will soon decide to allow the Dems back in power for a while. They’ve got no problem with the power structure, as long as they’ve got a shot at moving up within it.
do “get it”. I am sure that they are beholden to many corporate handouts and I am sure that somewhere along the line many of them checked ethics and heart somewhere outside of DC and now do not miss them or know where they left them. It is up to us to be realistic and truthful about those folks and realize that they are not doing us or the country any good. We can be upfront about it and look for good alternatives to them.
I think the notion is simply foreign to their minds. They’re so used to thinking in terms of “good for The Party” (meaning good for the party machine at the national level, IE, the consultants) and “good for me” that they simply can’t understand Dean’s “good for everyone” approach. Add that to pressure from their brothers on the Republican side of the aisle to counter his rhetoric – which is doing a lot of damage to them, or otherwise they wouldn’t be screaming about it so loudly – and you’ve got a recipe for a lot of people hating Dean for doing the right thing, but in terms of organization and in terms of PR.
All this bullshit about Dean shooting his mouth off? Well, it’s just that – bullshit. No real Deaniac blamed the scream for his loss – they put the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the media, for shutting off the crowd mikes. No Deaniac blamed his straight talking for it. And no-one with an ounce of political sense should think that his attacking Republicans is somehow bad.
Right fucking on. I cannot believe that the Democrats are cowering in fear that everyone is not going to like them if Dr. Dean keeps calling bullshit. Dean is a brawler, and after years of Democrats trying to figure out how they can be Republican-lite, it’s about damn time to see someone–and lo and behold, it’s the chairman of the party–declaring that the party stands for something.
Thanx for sharing this excellent read. I sincerely hope the Gore of 2005 is the Gore that runs in 2008. I love his fire and passion, especially when combined with his experience and intelligence. The Gore of today is light years better in front of a crowd than he was in 2000.
Of course, the (never) Right wing and the MSM will eviscerate Gore, but they did it to Kerry as well. Apparently they are ramping up their efforts against Hillary with the rape story now, so that is not a reason to sit on the sidelines.
Assuming Gore wins the nomination, who is the running mate that helps put him over the top? Fiengold, Barack, Edwards, Clark, Boxer? Hopefully he will avoid a boneheaded pick like Joementum again…
I have always wondered why he picked Liberman…Does anyone know. I like Gore..always have.
I think he was trying to inoculate himself from Clinton’s sex scandal (Lieberman had excoriated Clinton from the well of the Senate), and shoot for Jewish votes in Florida (that part worked).
I got to meet Gore in the 2004 campaign. We were the very last stragglers at a campaign event, and so he actually got to stop and talk for a minute (and he was very good with our then infant son). I was already supporting him as the nominee (though I voted Bradley in the primary), but I really started liking him a lot at that point.
After the injustice of the whole 5-4 SCOTUS thing, I vowed that I’d support him in a future run for president, as he deserved another chance. But when he endorsed Howard Dean (one of my least favourite politicians) I began rethinking that. At this point, I don’t hold the Dean endorsement against him so much, but I feel we’ve got to go for the best possible candidate, not just try to right a wrong done against Gore personally.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
At the time that Gore endorsed Dean, I did not think Dean was ready for the mainstream. Of course, back then I was relying on the MSM for info and had not yet discovered the liberal blogosphere. My biggest frustration with Kerry was when he would not stand up to the attacks. Dean would not have made that mistake. Dean is an incredibly articulate and dynamic speaker. Now that Gore has some passion and some fire in his belly, he is as well.
The left needs some front men with passion who can fire up a crowd, think on their feet, and are not afraid to mix it up with the (never) Right wing. And, most importantly, our front men need to absolutely believe in their own message. Congruence is critical. That is one thing are the neo-cons always have, no matter what venom they spew or bs they shovel, they always, always appear to completely believe. We need leaders who always believe in what they say as well. They are studies that demonstrate the importance of this (I can quote and link if you are interested).
I can’t think of anyone else besides Gore and Dean who fit that bill. I have seen some great speeches on the floor of the Senate recently from Feingold and Reid, but I can’t think of any other current Dem who has these qualities.
Of course, Bill Clinton has all of this and much more.
For the working class readers here, please don’t forget to make a small contribution on payday to the “We’ve got Dean’s back” fundraising link. There is one that I setup with the DNC (see my signature). $3,702.12 has been collected so far. Thanks to all of those who have contributed.
I have also signed up on Al Gore’s mailing list. If you want to be a volunteer, you can sign up here.
Man, that was a pleasure to read. Thank you.
Doing the same damned thing while expecting a different damned result.
And my Democratic party has been in “same stupid shit–different damned day” mode for the better part of a decade.
It’s. Not. Working.
Grow a pair–breasts or balls, I don’t care–and get to work. Stop caring what the Fox News Ministry thinks about you. They already despise you, and the only reason they want Democrats around is to pretend that there’s no one-party state in this country.
Thanks, MSOC for the rant. Now I’m going to bed!
Sweet dreams.
Well, let’s start with some agreement. I absolutely agree, and have been saying myself for a long time, that making sure there is a verifiable paper trail to be able to recount every vote if need be (as in Washington State last year) has to be priority #1, far above all others. I wish the Democrats in the Senate would just filibuster everything until that is passed.
However, I disagree with about everything else here. Many of Dean’s recent comments have been reckless, alienating, and just plain stupid–more or less as I feared (I’ve consider him a “gaffemeister” for around two years now). I can’t stand Joe Biden, and would actively oppose him as a candidate, but if anyone’s actual record (as opposed to latter-day-conversion rhetoric) is as a “corporatist”, it’s Howard Dean! Paul Wellstone’s former spokesman Jim Farrell wrote a blistering attack on Dean in the Nation in 2003, which included the following:
Moving on:
Why can’t Edwards (my “horse” last year, and in 2008 unless something changes, which it well could) take on Dick Cheney? He did so very well in the debate last year. This was asserted but not backed up, like a lot of claims made in the piece.
I also loved how this piece pre-emptively talks of inoculating Dean against criticism should he fail to shepherd the Democrats to victory. Why did results matter for Terry McAuliffe, but they won’t for Dean? And why do I suspect that while Podkin and his sympathisers won’t direct blame at Dean for a loss, they’ll certainly give him credit for a win? Isn’t this kind of “dittohead” thinking, the idea that “our Fearless Leader can do no wrong”, something we lambaste and mock when it comes from the right? C’mon, people, put down the Kool-Aid!
One more thing: isn’t Dean now one of those “entrenched Democratic fuckheads”? I’ve been alternately amused and appalled lately by how Deaniacs have insisted that no Democrat should criticise the DNC chair because we “need party unity”. Where was that sentiment when McAuliffe was chair, and Deaniacs were trashing him more than they did Republicans?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You know, it would be kind of amusing how someone could get every single thing so very backwards if it weren’t so sad…
As for the McAuliffe/Dean thing at the end, the only one of your points that is substantial enough to warrant a response, I have yet to see any Deaniacs preaching party unity. That smells suspiciously like a straw man. A burning straw man. What they do tend to say is that Dean is doing the right thing and being effective. He’s attacking the basis of Republican success, raising money faster than McAuliffe ever did, destroying our dependency on big corporations and other big-ticket donors, and reconnecting with the state party and the common man. Those attacking him are damaging both the party and the progressive agenda (intentionally, I’d say), not because they’re attacking him, but because of what they’re attacking him about.
Then again, I don’t expect people so obsessed with The Party to understand ideas like “don’t attack someone who’s doing the Right Thing”.
That is why Dean isn’t an “entrenched Democratic fuckhead” (nice sneaky name-calling there, by the way), and why the entrenched Democratic fuckheads that continue to criticize him for doing the right thing are wrong and need to be destroyed. It’s not some bullshit concept like “party unity” or “party loyalty”. It’s because Dean’s doing the right thing and getting attacked for it.
This is a revisionist piece of history that is really a pet peeve with me. The conventional wisdom (among Deaniacs at least, but even beyond) is that without “the scream” Dean was headed for the nomination. This totally ignores the fact that the scream came about because Dean was trying to rally his troops after a devastating plummet to a distant third place finish in Iowa. Dean himself said at one point that “we always knew whoever won Iowa was going to win the whole thing”, though he may have joined the revisionists since then.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You can always get away with attacking someone that the audience hates.
Dean seems to get that, but he seems to forget that his audience is not the group of people sitting in front of him. Its everyone else that’s going to hear about it second-hand — whether by stories by attendees or by the media.
The Republicans have practiced this for years.
Simply put: attack your opponent without labeling the listener as part of the opponents group.
Sometimes Dems misunderstand this as “attack the issue”. No. Its not that hard.
Just don’t risk making the listeners feel slandered, unless you won’t get their support anyway.
Republicans freely slam “liberals”. Why? Because self-identified liberals will never support Republicans. Because “Reagan Democrats” don’t see themselves as liberals. Its safe and effective.
If Dean would simply substitute Neo-con, Conservative, Bush Crowd, or any other code-word in place of Republican, he could be as “inflammatory” as he has been. The following would happen:
Right now, I can almost believe the last reason is the reason Dean has continued using “Republicans”.
during the run-up to the 1988 presidential elections, I seriously considered supporting Biden during his primary bid. Since I was, at that time, in one of my out-of-character career moves — I was a freakin’ Wall Street investment banker (don’t ask, it’s a long story)– I got myself invited to a Biden fundraiser in NYC for Wall Street types. Biden had apparently just come from some primary stop in some rural state (I forget which), and spent most of the cocktail hour schmoozing with the Wall Street types ridiculing the “hicks” he had just encountered, and trying to assure us that he was much more at home with “us” than them.
He lost my support at that point.
Don’t think he’s changed his stripes since.
Good diary.
Dean’s fighting spirit is to be applauded…and those in the party establishment who don’t really want to fight the GOP in the first place should be derided. I wish I could join Podvin in rooting on Dean, Gore, et al. But then again, I’m a Green. So here’s some cold water.
First, as Yaright points out, the real problem with some of Dean’s attacks is that he framed them in a terrible way. Attacking neo-cons or even religious extremists is fine. Attacking “white Christians” (and I know that’s not exactly what he did, but that’s what it sounded like) makes a lot less sense. This doesn’t mean Dean’s Democratic critics are right; their desire for Dean to simply shut up is entirely misplaced. But just because you’re critics are wrong doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of room for improvement.
But there’s a much larger problem here, a bigger disconnect between the tune and the words, as it were. The Democratic Party is still full of actual progressives, though they are far from real power within it. Look, for example, at much of the Congressional Black Caucus. Or look around you at the next rally or political event you attend. So why, oh why, do y’all perpetually turn to a bunch of tired old (white Christian) centrists every time you’re looking for a fiery progressive? It just makes no sense. Dean (and Gore in his present incarnation) is distinguished both by his fighting rhetoric, and by being in the midst of a personal tiff with the Clinton wing of the party (which progressives should oppose for all the reasons Podvin points to). But neither Gore nor Dean is from the left of the party, except in the sense that David Souter is on the left of the Supreme Court. It’s like Bill Bradley in 1988, a centrist cast as the progressive alternative simply because the party had moved so far to the right.
Progressive Democrats still have the opportunity to get behind the party’s actual progressives. But as the Podvin piece demonstrates yet again, they’re not doing so. Instead, they’re attracted (for good reasons) to the more oppositional rhetoric of Dean and Gore, but are willing to accept this rhetoric at face value and put their money behind an intraparty battle among centrists.
except to those with a need to attack Dean, the media, the right and the part of the left which is hoping for the failure of the democratic party.
Dean did not attack Christians and that is not how it sounded. That is how it is being manipulated by people with some other aggenda.
I guess we just disagree. Attacking the Republicans as the party of white Christians was silly. It wasn’t a huge mistake. It was the right general idea. But it could have been said in a much more effective way. The problem is that there are a lot of white people who consider themselves Christians in this country. And to speak of them as a pejorative seems to me to be a poor choice of words. At the very least, it plays into the hands of those who choose to distort what Dean was saying. And, yes, I know what Dean was trying to say. And I think that any self-respecting Democrat ought to be saying that, which puts me in an utterly different camp from those who think that Dean’s style is somehow a terrible mistake. FWIW, I think Dean’s people actually agree with me on this. The WaPo wrote yesterday that “Dean’s aides said he now realizes he needs to choose his words more carefully but plans to keep the pressure on Republicans.” I think his comments about Fox News as a propaganda outlet for the GOP were appropriate and 100% on target.
My core problem with Dean is not his rhetoric, which is much more right than its wrong — I think his reputation as a loose cannon is unfair, and the white Christian party comment was a rare misstep — but rather his policy positions, which are simply not particularly progressive. Let’s take one example: Iraq. Dean was opposed to the war, and he should be applauded for that. But he is not currently in favor of immediate withdrawal. And his foreign policy team during the 2004 presidential race was composed of the same sort of center-right people that surrounded Bill Clinton (one of Dean’s chief foreign policy advisers was, for example, a former adviser to Republican and Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen). If you want to know what a progressive policy package looks like, see the issues that Kucinich was running on last year (though I’d be the first to admit that for a variety of reasons Kucinich himself is really not presidential material).
During the primaries last year Gore gave a speech (don’t remember where) that blew the roof off the joint. People were standing at the end, yelling “Run Al, run”. The press ignored it.
Mrs. Clinton is one of my Senators and I voted for her, but her pandering to the right is getting on my nerves. Her office has said she has “no comment” on the congressional call for an investigation into the “Downing Street memo”.
Fox had a segment this AM which was titled something like “Dean is hurting Democrats”. Their concern for the health of the Democratic Party should convince everyone that Dean is doing a great job.
Of course, if they do manage to oust Dean in 2006, they face their worst nightmare – Dean running for Prez in 2008. I don’t think they’ll try and oust him. I think all Biden’s prattling (and a lot of prattling from so-called “progressives” about how “damaging” Dean is) is intended to cripple the Good Governor and return the DNC safely to corporate control by 2008, while leaving Dean in charge as a figurehead.
I have yet to see a Dean comment that was actually offensive or damaging. All of his comments were directed at people who would not vote for us anyway. Come on, do you seriously think someone who thinks of themselves as a “Republican” would vote Democrat? No way! That’s the kind of person like Kos, who identifies with party first and philosophy second. Many more people self-id as conservative despite holding progressive positions, thanks to the Republican party and the DLC’s relentless drive to the right and smearing of liberals over the past twenty years. Attacking conservatives, or neo-cons for that matter, would be instant suicide.
No, Dean did and is doing the right thing. The fact that the Republican attack machine immediately kicked into high gear shows that he did and said the right thing – they’re in damage control mode right now, and are absolutely terrified that he might press the attack instead of listening to his “allies” and baking off.