http://slate.msn.com/id/2089813/ The New Stop-Dean Candidate Howard Dean. By William Saletan Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 1:36 PM PT All year, Howard Dean has been gaining ground in the Democratic presidential race. And all year, Democratic centrists have been scrambling for a candidate to stop him. He's too liberal, they said. He's soft on defense, a Vermont lefty, an evangelist for expansive programs. To stop him, they turned to Joe Lieberman, then John Kerry, then Wes Clark. But the more Dean's rivals expose his record, the more I suspect that the centrist who's going to spare Democrats this left-wing nightmare isn't any of these guys. It's Howard Dean. Months ago, when the candidates squared off at a Children's Defense Fund forum, moderator Judy Woodruff tried to embarrass Dean by pointing out that he had criticized "liberals" for opposing the 1996 welfare reform law. An article in The Nation complained that Dean had cut welfare spending in Vermont, supported the death penalty, opposed federal gun control, and criticized Dick Gephardt's "radical revamping of our healthcare system." On Sept. 4, in the first of the fall debates, Dennis Kucinich charged that Dean would have to cut "social spending" because Dean was intent on "balancing the budget" and was "not going to cut the military." Five days later, in the next debate, Joe Lieberman protested that Dean had "said Israel ought to get out of the West Bank and an enormous number of their settlements ought to be broken down." In a general election, I figure these attacks would get Dean at least the 537 votes Democrats needed to win Florida in 2000 and probably the 7,211 they needed to win New Hampshire. For a while, I worried that Dean was a protectionist. Then Gephardt relieved me of that impression, pointing out on Sept. 14 that Dean had declared himself "a very strong supporter of NAFTA." On Sept. 25, in the third fall debate, Dean was forced to admit that he had advised President Clinton to admit China to the World Trade Organization on "national security" grounds, betraying competence in both economics and foreign policy. Kucinich chastised Dean for proposing a health insurance program that fell far short of Kucinich's plan, which would cover "everything" and require an additional "7.7 percent tax paid by employers" on all wages. On Oct. 9, in the fourth fall debate, Kucinich complained that Dean was against pulling out of Iraq immediately. Dean had to concede that he thought such a pullout would be irresponsible, because in the post-Saddam power vacuum, if al-Qaida were to "establish a foothold in Iraq, or if a fundamentalist Shiite regime comes in, allied with Iran, that is a real security danger to the United States." That moment alone may have earned Dean the 21,597 votes he would need to pick up Nevada. Now the big scandal is Dean's fiscal responsibility. Gephardt's opposition researchers have discovered that to rein in the federal deficit in 1995, Dean proposed to "move the retirement age to 70" and "reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10% to 7%, or less if possible." Toward that end, Dean endorsed "requiring some Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the cost of their medical services." Dean had the gall to say it was "unfair" to take Social Security and Medicare "off the table when it comes time for budget cuts," because then "states and poor people would suffer disproportionately" from having to bear the entire burden. In 1996, Dean rashly "said the federal government should follow a nonpartisan commission's recommendations to reduce the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment." In 1997, he supported the Balanced Budget Act. Worse, according to Gephardt, Dean actually proposed to reform federal programs he thought weren't working. In 1992, Dean accused Medicare of "mismanagement." In 1995, he met with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and expressed interest in Gingrich's proposal to limit the growth of Medicaid "because [the proposal] would free the states from many federal mandates, allowing them the freedom to better manage health care costs." In a shameful pact with the radical right, Dean endorsed the Republican push for "decentralization, more block grants, but not total freedom for the states." But Dean's most despicable heresy in the 1990s, it turns out, was his defiance of the AARP. "We all better stop being terrified" of lobbyists for elderly Americans, Dean said, according to a Sept. 26 Gephardt press release. Gephardt noted that the AARP's president repeatedly assailed the Medicare cost controls Dean had endorsed. Two days after Gephardt issued his release, Kerry issued another that quoted an AARP official denouncing Dean for making seniors share the cost-cutting burden in Vermont. You can imagine how angry I am, as a swing voter, to find out these horrible things about Dean. My hands are trembling so violently, I can barely write his name on the check.
I don't like that viewpoint at all. Wasn't Social Security sold to the public as an separate and untouchable program, not just another tax?
Cohen: There's stuff in there I'm not crazy about either, but the thesis of the article is that - guess what? - Howard Dean is a centrist. It's funny the way his opponents, seeking to provide an alternative to his candidacy, are now putting the lie to the idea he's too liberal to be elected. Great article by Will. Having surely given up on Edwards and Lieberman, I wonder if he's ready to endorse Dean. Sure would be a flip from his take on Dean earlier in the summer.
Interesting read. Thanks for the post, Batman Jones. I'm still surprised at how Dean is painted as this socialist zealot when in fact he's very moderate. If a guy who cuts welfare, is against gun control and balances the budget is too liberal, I'd hate to see how fellow candidates would treat a true progressive.
I just got around to reading this. Man, I'll have to vote for Clark because he's more moderate than Dean! I don't like some of Dean's ideas as well. I described myself as a moderate Democrat in another thread today, the same one where you described yourself as far-left (in response to some goofy right-wing fringer), and it seemed strange reading my post later. Back in the '60's, '70's and '80's I never would have described myself that way. And I think I would have seen myself much as you see Batman Jones... very liberal. I may have been more liberal than you are (I wouldn't be surprised). When Reagan was running against Carter in '80, I told my wife that we should move to New Zealand if he won and I was serious. She didn't want to make such a radical change, so here we are. The political landscape is skewed so far to the right today that a moderate is considered a leftist, a leftist part of the "lunatic fringe" by the "compassionate conservatives" that currently control our government. That term has been twisted out of all meaning. The only thing compassionate about Bush and the people behind him is their treatment of Corporate America and the Religious Right. Like I've said before, Goldwater and Nixon couldn't find a place in today's Republican leadership. They would be seen as too far to the left. And I'm old enough to have been around when they were around and they were two conservative dudes. Too strange. I don't know what got me off on a rant. I just get so angry when I see what's happening to so many aspects of this country we care so much about. I can see things getting so much worse, which is really frightening. The Democrats have to pick a candidate who can win.
Deckard: Don't sign up with Clark just yet. There's plenty of time for that. Most of the stuff in Will's article is old stuff. Dean's not running on the platform in the article. I posted it mostly to counter all the dorks that think he's too liberal, when he's clearly a textbook social liberal, fiscal conservative moderate Democrat. On the other stuff, I agree to a far-left label for the reasons you posted. I'm not a radical -- just a Democrat. Unfortunately, largely thanks to Clinton and the DLC, there are very few of us left.
That's what's happened to me over the years. When I was growing up, I was a rock-solid conservative Republican. Now, my views haven't changed to any great degree, but with each passing day, it seems these views that used to be considered conservative are now middle-of-the-road.
It's really strange, isn't it, mrpaige. It's nice that some of us, even coming from different ends of the political spectrum, can see what's happening to this country and meet somewhere in the middle on many things. I wish more people could. Batman, I'm going to vote for who has the best chance of beating Bush. If, at the end of the day, that turns out to be Dean... in my estimation... then trust me. I'll vote for him. Bush must be beaten.
While I'll admit that Wake and Lisa aren't for everyone, to not like the idea is just plain silly. Yes, I listen to Bad Company. Is that really so wrong? And when the revolution comes, you will be spared. Well, it is unfair, for Dallas to to not seek Walter's return. Especially after he provided them with such playoff heroics.
I miss Lisa too, DEANB. And I saw Bad Company in concert when they were young and they put on a good show. They were good company. I hope my family is spared as well...
howard dean came to my school today for a speech, the college republicans staged a protest outside the building, not on any particular issue but because he was running against their saviors, bush and cheney, and also so they could get on fox news. regular folks lost a little bit more respect of the republicans on campus. wtf were they thinking?
They lost respect over that? I've seen plenty of protests staged by people just to protest the things a speaker invited to campus believes in or has otherwise espoused, but not necessarily any particular issue. Heck, I've seen people protested against because people just didn't like them and didn't like that the school paid money to bring that person there to speak. You don't have to have a specific issue to want to protest. It can just be a general protest against someone who, in general, espouses things you disagree with. Of course, I am assuming that you actually went through and found out each protestor's motivation for attending such a protest, since you have made their motivation known here in your post. And, given that Republicans are simple folks who all think exactly alike (and dress alike, oftentimes, as well), we know that's why each of them was there.
I don't mind some Republicans protesting. I always thought it was part of the college experience. I hope some Democrats protest if some Republican speakers visit your campus... if they feel like it. I doubt if they'll get a shot at protesting a Bush speech there, but you never know. I believe in equal opportunity protesting. I did some, back in the ancient days... the dusty '60's and early '70's. It can help get the political juices flowing. Was great for meeting chicks as well. Of course, I was filled with a nobler purpose and anything else that happened was just an added, unlooked for bonus. (uh, unlooked for the first or second time... I gotta be honest. I always went around aware of my surroundings. And lovely they often were...)
to answer question: no, didnt go to the speech the guy leading and trying to start the protest was asking me to join in for the reason that dean was a democrat candidate and to show support for bush. and yes, a lot of people said that it was petty and only made them look worse. what was idiotic was that they werent protesting over issues but simply on thier choice party, they called it a protest but it was just a republican rally. It was like if a bunch of catholics protested in front of a synagogue because they thought their religion was right.
