Post-Gazette Editorial – 6/14/05

This page was last updated on June 14, 2005.

Dean’s day / Democrats should appreciate his tough talk; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 14, 2005.

I’m kind of surprised the PG takes the position it does in this editorial. This is one of those rare times I agree with the PG. Howard Dean should keep talking as he has and should resist censorship from Democrats who can’t stomach his “tough talk.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Ever since former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean emerged from obscurity to electrify his party during the early Democratic primaries of 2004, he has attracted more than his share of criticism.

“To his credit, Gov. Dean’s views aren’t interchangeable with Republicans or with moderates in his party. His boast has always been that he represents the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.’”

[RWC] Translation of “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”: Groups and people like MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Michael Moore, et cetera. Locally, I believe this group includes folks like Vince Avedon; Lonzie Cox, Jr.; Nikola Drobac; Frank LaGrotta; Stephen Kislock, III; Randy Shannon; et cetera based on their public comments and letters to the editor.

“After raising unprecedented financial support over the Internet for his unsuccessful campaign, Dr. Dean built a grass-roots movement that became the envy of his party rivals. He didn’t win the nomination, but he defied the experts by doing as well as he did.”

[RWC] “He defied the experts by doing as well as he did?” Mr. Dean won only his home state of Vermont, and that was only after he quit his campaign! How badly did “the experts” believe Dean would perform?

“Despite substantive differences with the Democratic establishment, his talent for energizing the base and raising cash made him a player in a party desperately searching for a message that resonates with voters. When Howard Dean became Democratic National chairman after the 2004 election, he promised to get Americans excited about the party and about its stark contrast with the Republicans.”

[RWC] See my comments below regarding Dean’s success raising funds as DNC chairman.

“Recently, he dismissed Republicans as ‘pretty much a white, Christian party.’ He told a Massachusetts audience that the Republicans’ ethics-challenged House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ‘ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence.’ He also taunted Rush Limbaugh and questioned the work ethic of rich Republicans. While many Democrats cheered, moderates like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and former vice presidential nominee John Edwards made it clear that Chairman Dean didn’t speak for them.

[RWC] Regarding Rep. DeLay, he’s “ethics challenged” only in the eyes of opponents. As noted even by liberal “news” organizations, many members of Congress are “guilty” of the same things alleged of DeLay. The editorial neglected to mention there are no criminal charges against DeLay. In essence, Mr. Dean made himself district attorney, judge, and jury. Now consider the following comment Dean made about Osama bin Laden in 2003 even after bin Laden was seen on videotape acknowledging responsibility for 9/11. “I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.”¹

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, the “taunting” was an imitation of Limbaugh snorting cocaine. Limbaugh has never been accused by anyone of snorting cocaine or taking any other illegal drugs. In 2003, Limbaugh acknowledged an addiction to pain killers prescribed after surgery in the late 1990s for his chronic back pain. Limbaugh went into rehab for a month after he acknowledged the addiction. Though no charges have been filed, it’s alleged Limbaugh fed his addition by acquiring the prescription drugs illicitly.

Regarding “rich Republicans,” Dean never said “rich.” Dean said, “a lot of them [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives.” This isn’t questioning a “work ethic,” it’s questioning honesty. In other words, Dean claimed Republicans tend to be dishonest. For the sake of argument, let’s say Dean did say rich. Is the implication that rich Republicans don’t make honest livings but rich Democrats – like Dean himself (his 2002 financial disclosure report listed his assets at greater than $4,000,000) – do?

Senator Biden (D-DE) and former Senator Edwards (D-NC) are “moderates” only if moderate has been redefined to mean liberal and partisan. For 2004, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gave these senators liberal voting record ratings of 95% and 100%, respectively.² If these men are moderates, does that make Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) at 75% a conservative?

The editorial neglected to note Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized Dean for his DeLay comment, and no one has ever claimed Frank was a “moderate.” He received a 100% 2004 ADA rating.

“We expected Dean’s over-the-top speeches to put Republicans on the defensive, but why are some prominent Democrats shushing him like a loud talker in a movie theater? Isn’t it the chairman’s job to stir the passions of voters, especially in advance of next year’s congressional elections?”

[RWC] I thought the party chairman’s primary job was to raise contributions. By all accounts, Dean has been a failure in this aspect of his job to date. According to BusinessWeek, “After achieving money parity with the GOP in 2004, Democrats have fallen far behind. According to the Federal Election Commission, the DNC raised $14.1 million in the first quarter of 2005, vs. the Republican National Committee’s $32.3 million. Dean drew about 20,000 new donors, while his rivals picked up 68,200. The bottom line: Republicans have $26.2 million in the bank vs. $7.2 million for the Dems.”³

I don’t know that “Dean’s over-the-top speeches [have] put Republicans on the defensive,” but you can’t expect Republican leadership to say nothing when Dean insults tens (hundreds?) of millions of Republican voters. My concern is that sooner or later a Republican will get fed up and make “over the top” comments himself. At that point, the press will jump all over “those mean Republicans who don’t want to discuss the issues” and forget it was Dean’s three+ months of insults that started it. It’s like a fight during a football game; it’s usually the guy who throws the second punch who gets flagged by the ref. In this case, the “ref” (read: the old media) is waiting for a prominent Republican to make such a misstep.

“Howard Dean may be too inspiring for his own good. He’s said some things that were rude and possibly exaggerated, but politics has never been about making the opposition feel good (the GOP can attest to that). Besides, at the core of his message is a certain truth.”

[RWC] What is “his message?” Dean merely engages in insults and name-calling. He hasn’t argued the issues. So far, all Dean has done is preach to his ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party’ that Republicans are vile beings.

Given that Dean’s message so far is insult throwing and name-calling, the comment “at the core of his message is a certain truth” tells a lot about the PG.

“Until Democrats begin to see his tough talk as an asset, they will never appreciate the value of Howard Dean.”

[RWC] As I wrote above, I completely agree. Democrats need to encourage Howard Dean to be more aggressive and outspoken.

1. Dean: Bin Laden guilt best determined by jury; CNN; December 26, 2003.

2. In the ADA report, Edwards’ rating is listed as 60%. However, that’s only because Edwards missed eight votes (40%) due to campaigning for president and vice president. For all votes in which Edwards participated, he voted with the ADA position. That’s why I wrote his rating was 100%.

3. Howard Dean’s Raised Voice Isn’t Raising Cash; Eamon Javers and Richard S. Dunham; BusinessWeek; June 6, 2005.