DraftHoward.com just posted strong talking points that read almost as a direct rebuttal of the L.A. Times hit piece on Dean in the Friday paper. The debate, in the draft guys' eyes, has nothing to do with left vs. right. Our challenge, rather, is choosing between reform and yet more of the status quo.
[An aside: I gotta say, the thought of more of
this status quo makes me shiver.]
The key bullet points:
- This is a contest between centrists. All of those being mentioned have centrist bona fides. Some pundits, egged on by a delighted GOP, insist on some ideological divide in our party—but evidence of such a divide is scarce. Bill Clinton’s two terms as president set the new paradigm for the Democratic Party and everyone in this race has followed his lead on innovative, moderate policy. As for Dean, centrist groups like the DLC praised Dean’s re-election as Governor of Vermont.
- This is a contest between the establishment and the reformers. We must decide between a party of insiders, lobbyists and consultants who want to keep the status quo, and a party that looks to real people, small donors and new ideas. Howard Dean—who breathed new life into the party with his campaign—is the candidate of reform. The people who oppose Dean believe that the party is on the right path. The insiders even admit that they don’t want change: Rep. Bob Matsui, who chaired the DCCC this cycle, said recently, “We need someone who is part of the Democratic establishment. Someone who is more of a known quantity.”
- This contest has nothing to do with policy issues. The vast majority of Democrats — including Dean and virtually all of the other potential chairmen—agree that we need health care for everyone, but not a single-payer, government-run system. And that we need to invest in schools, but only while balancing our budgets at the same time. And that the world’s strongest military is much stronger when it leads a global alliance built on our moral leadership and sustained by trust and respect for America.
- This is a contest about who we are. Are we a party that says, “We’re for everything the president says, except for the truly horrible things”? Or are we a party that says “This is our agenda of new ideas and fundamental reform”? Do we hem and haw, and let Republicans dictate the terms of debate? Or do we define ourselves, our values and our ideas on our own terms? Do we worry, fear, and play defense? Or do we speak clearly, stand up for ourselves, and play offense?
Interesting words — interesting and dead on, in my opinion.