I just came across this article:
http://www.amityshlaes.com/?2005-06-19
by Amity Shlaes', where she slings rather harsh words at Howard Dean.
She starts with:
"Sometimes a political story morphs into an animal story. This seems to be happening to the Democrats in the US as they work out their future. Consider Howard Dean. A year ago Mr Dean withdrew from the presidential primaries yelping like a hound. Lately, feral Howard has reappeared as chairman of the Democratic National Committee."
[prescript: please excuse my incomplete proofreading prior to posting this diary, and some Auto Format screwup with indentation.]
And then she adds,
"Calling Mr Dean a canine sounds harsh. But he is not the only dog in the Democratic party. There are the Blue Dogs."
The main purpose of her article is, seemingly, to talk about the "Blue Dog Democrats", who traditionally tended to be southern democrats with bluecollar roots and held socially moderate to conservative positions.
This part of the aticle is quite reasonably written, but it appears to me that the references to Howard, at least in their tone and vitriole level were just placed there perhaps to draw wicked contrast, or perhaps even as a part of co-ordinated effort on the GOP front to slime Howard every on chance they get as they realize that the general public is wisening up to them (as in the siking Job approval and related figures for the president).
Here are my comments directly addressed to her:
1) First of all, as a Governor, Mr. Dean balanced ALL of his budgets, starting with paying down some deficit that was handed down to him. On top of that, he went on to provide extensive healthcare coverage which included all children and teens under the age of 18.
What he showed was that it is possible to stand up for progressive values, such as expanding education and healthcare access to as many people as possible, while at the same the balance the checkbook.
In fact, as you apparently are a fiscal conservative, you should be embracing Howard Dean for the tighness he showed with Vermont's pocket book.
2) As a matter of fact, it is the Democrats that are on the record of having done much better with people's money. The case in point is the graph that I am sure you have seen during the '04 campaign, that showed how the Federal Deficit balooned during Republican regimes (the current one being the most egregious in this regard) while it did much better during Democratic ones. In case you haven't a quick googl search should get you there.
So, unless you are a hypocrite, you really should actually bolt over to our modern progressive movement that also strongly supports fiscal discipline (e.g. Clinton's push for bringing down the deficit even before the '95-96 Gingrich's Contract with America, and Dr. Dean's fiscal discipline, well before "balanced budgets" became a buzzword)!
- In fact, I believe that under strong economic conditions, after satisfactory contributaions have been made for important progressive causes (such as education and health care access, to repeat myself), Gov. Dean would be first in line to cut taxes, perhaps even fighting his party tooth and nail in order to do so.
- You see, Howard is a principled guy, and he is in this business for people's good and not his own.
And, that should tell you why so many of us support him passionately, and this should also be an answer to Mr. Cheney's quandry when he said "I've never been able to understand his appeal", and went on to add "Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does", and went much much further by adding
He's never won anything, as best I can tell! Hat's off, Mr. Vice President :)
5) I DO NOT personally endorse or support most of the rash statements madeby Howard Dean, especially the ones where a "generic" Republican is being characterized, for I have met many good natured, hard working, and honest Republicans. I am sure that so has Howard, and hence I believe that he did not mean those statements to apply in as broad a generality as you guys are painting them to be.
Also, considering the amount of exertion he is currently likely experiencing with his non-stop travel around the country, I am willing to cut him some slack when he mis-speaks a little. You don't have to cut the same slack, but to use two or there sentences that he says at party rallies, where the purpose is to pump up the crowd as his personal beliefs and to attempt to score political points on that basis is feeble and pathetic.
6) Can you justify your assertion that the Dem. party is "jerking leftward" implying that the big and bad Howard is one the reasons why, when Gov. Dean practiced such moderate values as, balancing the budgets, and staying out of people's lives (AFTER giving them opportunities to help themselves) as witnessed in his moderate policies on Gun control in VT? Can you list 4-5 specific stands of Howard Dean that justify your assertion?
Or is this just one among the collection of fabrications that you guys and gals want to continue to perpetrate about liberals and Dean? I am refering to prevarications such as "all that the liberals want to do is take your money and spend it" that the likes of Rush Limbaugh keep spewing out day in and day out, and the cheap (but funny, I admit) retort "You pay, I go" that Bush used against Kerry during the debates.
- Using words like "feral" to describe Howard Dean, considering the exemplary Governor that he was, and the apparent simple life he leads, is nothing but intellectual masturbation. I know you can do better, Amity!
- In this article, your point seems to have been "being a moderate is good", but, moderation is a two way street. In fact, moderation becomes possible only when the stronger side takes a step in the direction of the weaker side, which is quite the opposite of the "My way or highway" attitude and approach that the Bush adm. has always taken.
Further, you do not appear to be too moderated yourself when it comes to your staunch and unqavering support of Mr. Bush. Case in point: in your article "When George is Stingy with Tony" (
http://www.amityshlaes.com/?2005-06-12) on Bush's reluctance to stand firmly with Blair on development aid, you offered the justification: "But the administration believes that democracy is the best form of aid in the long run, and that it is in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring about democracy.", which is about as crude a partisan spin as anyone can put on this issue.
So, in summary, Ms. Shlaes, you need to use more sound and solid logic than simple Howard bashing to get your points across.
ciao
Neo