Howard Dean Is No George McGovern. He Might Be Bill Clinton.

[Karmadillo]

Interesting article. Worth reading, maybe even discussing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/rauch2003-12-09.htm

Howard Dean Is No George McGovern. He Might Be Bill Clinton.
Even on Iraq, Dean has planted himself subtly but distinctly to the right of his supporters
by Jonathan Rauch

<edit>

Don't bet on it. I spent several days recently poring over Dean's speeches and other public comments. The conclusion was not as expected. The Dean campaign may be set to the music of firebrand liberalism, but its words belie the notion that Dean has painted himself into a far-left corner. Even on Iraq—his signature issue—Dean has planted himself subtly but distinctly to the right of his supporters.

Dean's faithful believe the war was wrong, wrong, wrong. Dean seems to agree. "Had I been a member of the Senate," he said in a speech in February, "I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the president to use unilateral force against Iraq—unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency." In late November, he ran an ad saying, "I opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

High-octane stuff; but Dean has been more cautious on Iraq than his enthusiasts realize. For example, in that same February speech, he went on to say, "I do not believe the president should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict ... without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations." That sentence contains some artful phrasing.

In reality, Dean favored an alternative war resolution (sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.) that differed little from the one that passed. True, Biden-Lugar called on Bush to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the war, but it did not require Bush to obtain such a resolution, if the Security Council balked. In other words, Dean favored a congressional resolution authorizing exactly the course that Bush took.

more...


Note: My main interest in the article was the author's discussion of Biden-Lugar and after I first posted it, a moderator eventually locked it because my thread title "failed to adequately etc etc etc". Here's the link to the discussion resulting from the previous incarnation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=877276&mesg_id=877276

[mikehiggins]

1. What people beleive a politician is, is often what he paints himself

to be, not what subsequent events reveal himself to be.

[dsc]

2. I am really sick to death

of having posters here tell me how stupid I am and how I don't know what my candidate stands for. I do know what Dean stands for as I have proven over and over by posting, without notes, exactly that.

[Scott Lee]

5. There is a major psychosis going on, and it's not going away

Some of the same group hang on to these outdated and already explained issues like a pitbull hangs on to your leg. I've seen sour grapes and raw hate before, but the stuff I've seen at DU regarding Howard Dean is taking the cake and the whole damn bakery.

Note: The above post was written by an independent, sentient, educated thinker who is not a cultist, minion, errand boy or shill for an unnamed presidential candidate who's last name may or not rhyme with "Keen".

[dsc]

8. the most galling thing

is some of the most adamant purveyors of that meme are people who post howling errors themselves. I can't name names but I am sure you know who I mean here.

[Karmadillo]

15. Of course you can't name names

but if some of the "howling errors" are contained in the article being discussed in this thread, it might be enlightening if you were to point them out. Thanks.

[Karmadillo]

10. I doubt the author posts here and doubt he's calling you stupid.

He's simply making a number of substantive statements about Dean's record. If what he says contains errors, it would be helpful if you pointed them out. Thanks.

[oasis]

3. Biden-Lugar again rears its ugly head. Hopefully this article gets read.

[LuminousX]

4. Biden-Lugar was first, IWR was second

IWR was the compromised version. It wasn't an either or scenario.

ProfessorPlum in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=99561#99857">this thread stated it in the best, most coherent terms I've seen so far:

Here's my shorthand recollection of what happened. Biden-Lugar is in the senate. While it is being debated, Dean says he supports it. The senate bill is undercut by certain nefarious Democratic congresscritters. IWR results, which is an inferior bill in many important ways. Bush has laid a trap for them: vote for this inferior bill, which cuts congressional oversight of my actions and field of operation, or the GOP will smear you later as weak on terraists. Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards all vote for it, hoping, we assume, that the outcome is good for the US. Then Bush sh*ts on those who voted for IWR by breaking international law to conduct an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. At this point, Dean is opposing the invasion, pointing out that although a case could be made which would support unilateral invasion, it certainly has not been made at this point. The four candidates above at this point were all tacitly or vocally supporting the invasion.

At this point, Dean uses IWR to point out the difference between himself and the four above, saying that capitulating to Bush in this trap was a weak choice. Emotionally, I agree. None of the folks above would have had to vote for it - it would have passed the GOP controlled house anyway. If you are making symbolic votes, can't you symbolically oppose a power grab by Chimpy, even if you think the IWR might do some good?

I think Dean was criticizing not only the substance of the IWR, but the message that those four symbolic votes sent. And I think rightly so. Again, I think Kerry was caught in the trap of not wanting to be labelled weak on defense (not seeming to realize that Patton himself would be labelled as such if he were running as a Democrat) when he didn't oppose the invasion, months after he realized he got used on IWR. Had he done so, Dean would have had no traction on the issue.

I just don't see how Dean is the bad guy here. He was unimpressed with that vote, especially in retrospect and especially since Kerry was supporting the actual invasion. And so was I.

[JNelson6563]

11. this is well stated

Though we have debated the IWR/Biden-Lugar businesses here ad nauseum, the fact remains, when the boy king launched his great Iraq adventure the others running for Prez that voted for it had little choice but to hope it went quickly and very well. Dean stood up and said it's wrong. It was extremely unpopular to do this.

I recall very few taking the chance on speaking out at the launch of this war and all were brutally attacked for doing so.

Now that it is "safer" and more popular to speak out about the debacle we are hearing more criticism from those who like to stay on the safe, sure path.

Julie

[blm]

16. Yeah...I guess you also forget Kerry was attacked as unpatriotic by DeLay

and Co. for going after Bush at the beginning of the war for his "regime change" comments and Kerry's criticism of Bush's timing and war strategy when he hadn't laid out the diplomatic efforts first.

But, no...to you all it's "Only Dean ever spoke out." You conveniently forget that others did and do, but the media only focuses on the comments from Dean far more than any other candidate as far back as March.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Excellent points.

The fact is that 23 senators made a "symbolic" but hopeless vote against US agression against a Iraq. And, 4 Democrats now running for president backed that aggression openly. Does anyone really believe that they voted for the IWR for any reason other than political expediency? Sure, the repugs set a trap, and they walked right into it and, out of fear of being thought "soft on defense", timorously voted for it. Now, that Dean and Kucinich have made it possible, they are speaking out against some of the excesses of that aggression and decrying the inability of BushCorp to get us out of the mess they voted FOR.

[Armstead]

6. Jesus H. Krow

I am so sick of this crap that Dean's supporters have scales in their eyes, and are being bamboozled by the evil Dr. Dean.
.

The "centrists" here and elsewhere have constantly told the liberals to be less "purists" and to "get real."

Well fukitall that's what many are doing. We know Dean is not a diehard leftie. We know this is a compromise.

But for the "centrists" that is still not good enough. When we try to be realistic we're accused of drinking the Kool Aid and being led by the nose and that we're being naive.

Screw that attitude. Biden-Lugar doesn't matter. What matters is Dean's basic position was consistent on Iraq. He may have oscillated from time-to-time, and he was not necessarily as staunchly against it as some. But his basic position was one that anti-war Dems could support at a time when the other major candidates ignored and abandoned us.

[Mattforclark]

7. I'm not worried that he's McGovern, I'm worried

that he is Dukakis.

Check out the attack ads --->

http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1988,all,,,,#

[Armstead]

9. And Clark is Reagan

Not really, but that is a silly comparison. Dukakis lost because he was a lousy candidate in personal terms. His policies didn't defeat him. His lack of willingness to defend them.

If anything Dukakis was the forerunner of the centrists.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, and Clinton- all in ONE package

He's got the Mondale philosophy on taxes.
the peacenik image of McGovern.
governor of a liberal state baggage of the Duke. (and he's short too)
Draft/military avoidance legacy of Clinton.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicRic]

13. Wishful thinking There's only one Clinton !

We may not see a politician with the skills of Clinton again for sometime now .He is a natural, a self made man ,with a brain the size of Texas ,bush is a natural idiot with a brain the size of a baby pea ! What the heck is wrong with people trying to convince themselves that bush knows what he is doing . I've never in my life seen someone get such high marks for doing such a terrible job ! Please lets do our country a big favor and vote this guy out in 04 !

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I'm a Dean supporter but I sure as hell hope he's not Clinton

I voted for Billy twice but had to convince myself that he couldn't do too much harm to the party. Unfortunately, I was wrong. He won, but drug the party to the right in doing so. Even now, on this board, apologists are still singing his praises for his clever tactics of compromising the core beliefs of the party.

Dean is not the ideal candidate but, at least, he's not in thrall to the corporate interests of the right wing of the Democratic Party.

He's a step in the right direction, not the whole journey.

[janx]

19. Dean is not like anyone we have seen before.

That's what baffles his rivals and makes them angry. But they should pause and take another look.

[blm]

21. We've seen him before...a governor whose rhetoric doesn't match

his actual record while running for the presidency. Someone who went for a long time without media scrutiny of their records. We saw that in 2000 didn't we?

[arewethereyet]

20. he is neither

he is not painfully leftist nor a polished polititian and statesman.

he is not a polititian so comparisons are difficult.