There is a contingent of political columnists and commentators trying to make "unstable" the established view of Howard Dean the way the same folks managed to establish that Gore was clearly a "liar". Linda Chavez
adds her voice (impersonating Ann Coulter) to the din.
How effective are columns like this one, on individual and collective levels? What can be done to neutralize and defend against them?
Howard Dean is increasingly looking like he's come unhinged. While the Democratic front-runner shows no sign of slowing his long march toward his party's nomination, he has begun saying things that are not only irresponsible, they sound downright wacky.
This is the thesis, and the view of Dean conservatives want established as conventional wisdom on Dean. It is re-enforced throughout: "Dean can't help himself from saying weird things," "Howard Dean is an angry man," "[his] anger is making the candidate behave as if he were slightly unbalanced."
First there was Dean's accusation that the president might have been warned about the September 11, 2001, attacks. On the Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio, Dean said, "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is."
Dean tried to back away from the nutty accusation a week later when interviewed by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "Why would you say that," Wallace asked him, "Do you believe that?" To which Dean replied, "No, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that. But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know."
A nice thing to know? I suppose it would be nice to know that the president is not really an alien from outer space sent to rule the world. But most of us who are sane creatures assume that is the case -- certainly no one has to prove it to us.
To give Chavez some credit, she is fairly honest about using full quotes and putting them in some context. The Coulters of the world aren't that ethical. I suppose Chavez is simply more confident in her conclusions.
But otherwise, she's using similar tricks. Taking the comment as an accusation, she picks on "it'd be a nice thing to know," rather than actually address what Dean was actually talking about. She could have tried to make a case against the issue.
She moves on to Dean's comment, "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer," which I think is ripe for actual debate (though I generally agree with Dean's statement and certainly its meaning). But Chavez dismisses the quote as "just plain strange."
Chavez props up Lieberman, and then makes it clear she doesn't really understand comedians and comedy, and implying that Dean should "control" the words of anyone who speaks in support of him:
Howard Dean is an angry man, and he lashes out with such venom and hatred that he sometimes can't control his words -- or those of his most ardent followers. At a recent fundraiser, Dean stood off stage while comedian Judy Gold said of the president of the United States, "We have to get this piece of living, breathing s--- out of the office." Kate Lloyd, another comedian at the event, drew laughs when she referred to Michael Jackson's pending charges of child molestation. "Frankly, I'm far more frightened of Condoleezza Rice," she said, and then went on to refer to Vice President Dick Cheney's wife as Lon Chaney, an actor in horror movies. And trash-mouth comedian Janeane Garofalo, referred to the new Medicare prescription drug bill as the " 'you can go f--- yourself, Grandma' bill."
Dean chose to go onstage anyway, forfeiting an opportunity to pull a Bill Clinton "Sister Souljah" move. In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton chastised Jesse Jackson for inviting Sister Souljah to a Rainbow Coalition event because the rapper had suggested, in the wake of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people."
The most Howard Dean would say when he came onstage after the comedians had spewed their filth was a vague reference to some of the language that was used -- which was directed more at the "N" word liberally sprinkled throughout some of the routines. "I just don't have much tolerance for ethnic humor," Dean said. "We are all one community."
This is where Chavez's honest use of quotes and context hurt her arguement in my eyes: she's actually pointing out that he objected the part of the show he found offensive (ethnic humor). Where's the character flaw? Is Chavez merely saying he should he didn't go far enough, or was she willing to include Dean's objection to the use of the "'N' word" because she feels that that was not nearly as important to denounce as jokes likereferring to the new Medicare prescription drug bill as the " 'you can go f--- yourself, Grandma' bill."
When a Washington Post reporter asked Dean about the role anger plays in his campaign, "Dean responds negatively -- in fact, angrily, to the suggestion that his campaign is driven by anger." But that anger is making the candidate behave as if he were slightly unbalanced.
Chavez appears to be trying to establish Dean's offense to the accusation as irony befitting a crazy man.
George W. Bush may drive some Democrats crazy, but they better hope their likely nominee gets a grip on himself soon, or he'll make the whole party look mad next November.
This last line should be telling, right? Chavez is clearly a Republican and conservative. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party collapsing, in fact that would be something she would like, right?
Does the typical person read that last line of her column and reconsider the whole article with skepticism?
To repeat my above questions:
How effective are columns like this one, on individual and collective levels? What can be done to neutralize and defend against them?