Howard Dean's Media Blackout
Howard Dean debated Richard Perle last night at the Tom McCall Forum. First, Dean ordered a media blackout, then changed his mind.
I am, admittedly, still in a slow-simmering rage that my beloved party has chosen the toad from Vermont to lead us. With his bulldog demeanor, Jack-Nicholson-As-The-Joker grin, and profound inability to communicate any kind of message to the American people other than his insanity, it would seem to me that Barbra Streisand would be a better choice. Perhaps even a half-eaten Egg McMuffin or Buster the Bunny. But my temperamental inability to like Der Kommissar isn't the issue tonight, my dear blue friends.
The issue is the press blackout that wasn't. I've never understood progressives' fascination with Dean, who is neither progressive nor fascinating. Okay, I take that back. He is fascinating. In precisely the same way as President Bush. Both are arrogant, secretive and authoritarian, hiding behind an image and calling foul whenever someone questions their unbounded authority.
But this is the final straw, the nail in the coffin, the end so final that it requires cliche. Dean would dare to appear in a forum named for a great champion of open-meetings laws and forbid the press even to "paraphrase" his statements? We are led by a man so afraid of the press that he'll go to absurd lengths to protect himself from them. How, exactly, is this different from Bush's own fear of the White House Briefing Room? Sure, I understand why Dean's afraid. He knows that if he slips up and says something monumentally stupid (and he's smart enough to know that he probably will) the press will run the hell out of it. He knows he's up against the articulate and intellectually staggering Richard Perle. So why not show utter contempt for the press by barring them from covering the story?
But, not only does his maneuver stink of the petty despot that lurks in his shrivelled grey heart, but it was also incompetent. He had to backpedal and let them cover it anyway. He must have realized, at some point, that the story was going to be about the blackout itself. That Perle would be quoted at length, with no rebuttal from Dean, even in paraphrase, while the story would end with "Chairman Dean asked that his statements not be quoted."
Progressives should be ashamed to have supported this man. The party shold be ashamed to have promoted him. And our politicians should fear what horrific damage this man is about to do to our chances of electoral victory.
|
February 18, 2005 |
Joshua Gibson
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: The One True b!X | Feb 18, 2005 1:24:20 AM
"who believe that Dean's apparent standing policy regrding press access to events such as this one" should of course read "who believe that Dean's apparent standing policy regrding press access to events such as this one was dumb"
Posted by: Mitchell Gore | Feb 18, 2005 1:27:57 AM
So blame Dean and Democrats for the press being bombastic shills for the GOP
and too lazy to report on real stories?
What a bunch of empty vitriolic nonsense. I seriously doubt the veracity of your claims to love the Democratic party.
Posted by: Mitchell Gore | Feb 18, 2005 1:36:21 AM
BTW, from the Oregonian:
Don Walker, president of the booking agency founded by his late father, said a standard clause in Dean's speaking contract gives him control of press coverage of the event."We've been telling them for some time we're going to assume it's closed unless Governor Dean wants it open," Walker said. "Then it came to our attention that they would like it open and Dean said fine."
BTW, let's certainly not focus on what the substance of the debate was, or any issues of actual relevance to public policy and the direction of our country. No, lets instead focus on navel gazing non-stories and bloviate that Dean the next worse thing to Golum...
Rove could not be any happier with your enthrallment with the GOP pied piper on what the corporate media wants to blather about.
Let's not discuss the abject failure on the most basic strategic, and principled level with regards to the hubris, militaristic adventurism by the most corrupt administration in the modern era. We progressives have more important things to level our guns at... each other.
Posted by: Brian Wagner | Feb 18, 2005 1:44:11 AM
"With his bulldog demeanor, Jack-Nicholson-As-The-Joker grin, and profound inability to communicate any kind of message to the American people other than his insanity"
Well, if that's the case, then I would suggest that all liberals just give up. Because if so many of us can be inspired by a man like that, we obviously have no right to be in politics.
Honestly though, I've met and talked with the man, and seen many of his speeches, and covered him for my college paper for months of the election; there is nothing to this portrayal other than a willingness to accept unfriendly media accounts and "common" myths that arose during the campaign (like that crazy little idea that Dean was nearer to Socialism than Marx). Dean, as his record in Vermont shows, is foremost a pragmatist, and while its true that he has a bulldoggish appearance and an eerie grin, have you LOOKED at our president? As for the inability to communicate, that seems an odd attack to use against the man who was most comfortable speaking to crowds and rallying Democratic fervor.
Looks of a bulldog, instincts of an attack dog. I'm pretty damned happy that we were able to replace Terry McAuliffe, an uninspiring man lost in a desert if there ever was one as far as conveying messages go, with the presidential contender who lost because he came across as TOO partisan. As the party leader, partisanship is now a much larger plus, as many of the delegates who voted for him (and the heads of the DLC) conceded.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Feb 18, 2005 1:59:14 AM
I'm gonna have to agree with the previous posters in that no way should the first Governor to ever legislate civil unions for GLBT couples, and the architect of Vermont's Proposition 60 (funding distributed equally on a per-student basis), deserve such a false and vitriolic assessment as is contained in this post.
"Toad"? Takes one to know one.
(BTW, Mitch - good to see another fellow Kossack here on the state blog. Hope to hear from you often.)
Posted by: Joshua | Feb 18, 2005 2:26:20 AM
Somehow I'm unsurprised that Dean's attack dogs would sick so fast. To answer the charges in no apparent order:
1. I didn't mention the "substance" of the debate because I wasn't there and I've decided to honor the Chairman's blackout request. Indeed, the media as a whole should follow suit, and refuse to even mention him again. Also -- didn't we hear his argument against the war for, let's say, a whole damned year? And we've been hearing Perle's for at least ten.
2. If support for Dean is now a requirement for loving the Party than I will gladly leave. I doubt any of you would have been so eager to attack me for doubting the skills of Terry McAulliffe. I love the party enough to be deeply upset that it has taken such a bad turn, and enough to know that it has. I am a Democrat, but I am not a deluded one.
3. I never said Dean was anything like Marx. Indeed, my concerns about him are that he is, temperamentally and politically, far too much like the President. He is not a liberal, much less a progressive.
4. Dean may have communicated very well to crowds of eager Democrats. He communicated very poorly to the nation-at-large. Blame the media all you want, if it keeps you warm at night.
5. I realize that he changed his position based on being elected Chairman. However, he didn't inform the Forum of this until Monday, after he had been elected on Saturday. They had assumed, until then, that it was open. And even if it is more acceptable for a citizen to call for closed events than for the DNC chair, does it seem wise to choose a man to lead our party whose natural, out-of-politics-inclination is to rake in money from speaking-fees while not allowing the press to cover it?
6. Okay, fine, I'm a toad. But I'm not a megalomaniac. I realize that the nation has no use for me. Dean will never figure that out.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | Feb 18, 2005 2:42:01 AM
I was at the debate. Dean mopped the floor with Perle....and why would that be a shock? How can you defend the undefensible?
If Saddam was smart, he would have acquired nukes because God knows if you have nukes, Bush gets all confused and leaves you be.
[Off-topic and personal name-calling deleted. -Editor.]
Posted by: John Dunagan | Feb 18, 2005 2:42:06 AM
> He communicated very poorly to the nation-at-large.
When? The "scream"? CNN sound-engineered him out of the race, and every Democrat who's paying attention knows that. His campaign wasn't perfect, but he brought more people and more energy into the process than anybody in recent history.
I have to ask - what'd this guy do to you, Josh, such that you know for dead solid sure he's gonna ruin the party any more than say, Gore/Lieberman, already did?
Obviously, I think we're gonna be a better Party under Dean's leadership, and more inclusive, and less cliquish, and all of that's a very good thing that can help us win if we work hard enough at it.
But anyway, sue him for taking Sunday off. He's probably had a busy week.
Posted by: Joshua | Feb 18, 2005 4:19:30 AM
Taking Sunday off isn't the point. Here is the timeline, as near as I can piece it together.
1. On Saturday, Dean was elected Chairman of the DNC.
2. On Monday his agents told the Tom McCall folk that the event was closed to media.
3. On Wed. the Forum people informed the media.
4. 30 minutes later, after an AP inquiry, Dean switched course.
Now Dean claims his stance changed after he was elected Chairman. Why, then, was a forum that has never been closed to the press only learn of this "standard contract item" on Monday, after he was Chairman? And why did he back away from it only after the AP questioned the practice two days later?
And, after years of criticizing Bush for not being willing to face reporters, how can we honestly sit back and think it's okay for Dean to hide from them?
As for the issue of me just not "getting it." Well, I know it can be hard to realize that although you may be greatly inspired by a person, others are not. It was (and is) hard for me to understand why so many people found Kerry to be distasteful when I've been rooting for him for six years. But I was never so silly as to blame it all on the media.
Dean inspired a lot of people. Good. But he inspired the wrong people. He inspired progressive young people who, shocker of shockers, failed to show up for him in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire. For all the "good" he's done the party, it should be remembered that he didn't win the primary race. He has no substantive experience outside of Vermont. He's secretive and power-hungry, afraid of the press, didn't fight in Vietnam, and supported US military action abroad for twenty years before decided that since he was safely in Vermont and out of the political firestorm of voting against the Iraq resolution, he could probably gain from suddenly, for the first time in his political career, opposing unilateral action.
And Dean gets no credit for civil unions, my friends. The Supreme Court of Vermont gets the credit. His claims on this are like Reagan bragging up increased spending for schools in California during his governship when the legislature achieved that by overturning his veto.
If this is the kind of person I wanted to be president, I'd have voted for that other toad. The one from Texas.
PS: my fave of all fave commenters is totally "Joshua is a moron." And when I run, probably successfully, for DNC chair, given that body's track record, my slogan is so gonna be "Hey, I'm a complete and total moron!"
Posted by: Walt Steffan | Feb 18, 2005 5:51:38 AM
Gee- you sound precisly like a lot of the Republican phonys who pose as Democrats and then say that if Dean is party chairman they will desert the Democrat party for the Republican party.
If you are a Republican phony and I think you are then admit it and stop posing as a Democrat. Democrats can sniff out a phony in nothing flat
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Feb 18, 2005 6:19:40 AM
Walt,
I think Joshua is a true and committed Democrat. He's merely taking advantage of an intra-party forum to express his dislike of and worry about the new DNC chair.
And while I like Dean as chair -- more than I liked him as candidate -- I have to concede that Joshua has some good points. Howard Dean is not a liberal.
But, Joshua, I think a lot of your worry is misplaced. Non-political America doesn't care about national party chairs. And political America is unlikely to switch teams based on a national party chair.
The primary audience of the DNC chair is the party faithful. Somehow, and I've never understood how, Dean energizes and enlarges this group. And that can't be bad.
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 18, 2005 6:52:04 AM
Bert,
Gov. Dean is not liberal. Hmmm?
Then the current President Bush must be Albert Einstein reincarnated!
Definition of liberal in the realm of politics: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.
Alternatively, as for a liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform.
Sorry if Gov. Dean does not rate as the most extreme individual within the liberal and progressive political and social spectrums.
Nevertheless, this country does not need to any further extension of extremism in its’ political or social leadership.
Posted by: Tim Mooney | Feb 18, 2005 7:14:04 AM
I was not a supporter of Dean the presidential candidate, and was not ovely enthusiastic about his run for DNC chair.
Then again, I'm a long suffering hockey fan. I hated Brett Hull for years and years. Then he joined my team and suddenly I was pretty happy with him. Ditto with Darien Hatcher... a thug when he was a Star, but the second he signed with the Wings, he was a "tough gritty defenseman."
A tortured analogy to be sure... Ostensibly Dean has always been "on the team" but now that he is DNC chair, it feels like criticizing his every move is self-defeating. Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that other party in the early 80s... one of his famous positions was the so-called 11th Commandment... though shall not speak poorly of people in the party. Maybe we should think about emulating that around here?
And now, a moment of silence for my beloved NHL...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 18, 2005 8:26:43 AM
Joshua, you have a rare quality of provoking opinion--always good for a place where we want discussion.
That said, I couldn't disagree with you more about Howard Dean. You're right, he's not a far-left liberal, but he's also not a moderate. While Governor of Vermont, he left a number of credible liberal legacies, not the least of which was dramatically improved health care. I'd say he's a policy incrementalist, which many liberals decry as "moderate."
You're also wrong--empiracally (sp)--about his appeal. He may not have won the nomination in 2004, but it's safe to say that he was the first national candidate in 12 years to excite Democrats. You may say that he alienated some panicked moderates and loads of red-state Republicans, but it doesn't follow that he failed to communicate a message. And that leads us to your central and most shocking misunderstanding about Dean:
Both are arrogant, secretive and authoritarian, hiding behind an image and calling foul whenever someone questions their unbounded authority.
Of all the things you could call Dean, secretive and authoritarian are last. Less than 48 hours after becoming chairman, he had re-positioned the Democratic Party as "your party," and is encouraging the same kind of grassroots involvment he promoted as a candidate.
As a candidate, he took the very dangerous step of putting his message in the hands of the people. Anyone who supported him could receive code for webpages with the Dean look and Dean endorsement. He let bloggers and party faithful run with his message--in a manner inconceivable in the age of Karl Rove.
Dean's politics may not be everyone's cup of tea, and his mouth constantly gets him in trouble. Legitimate points. But to argue that he's undemocratic (little D democratic) is absurd. Why on god's earth would a power-hungry autocrat park himself as the chair of the DNC, where you become a cheerleader for real candidates and a mother for party activists across the country? If he were the fiend you depict, he certainly wouldn't launch himself by becoming DNC chair.
We do ourselves a disservice--or do the GOP a service--by second-guessing the motives of our own party. Dean will have plenty of critics from the GOP leveling petty, false, insincere, and distracting charges at Dean over the next four years. Is it too much to ask that we don't contribute to cacophany as well?
Posted by: Torrid Joe | Feb 18, 2005 9:02:35 AM
Jeff, you beat me by a half an hour. I was drowsily reading through Joshua's screed, until I got to the part about "secretive and authoritarian." That's like calling Cesar Chavez hopelessly mired in top-down politics--it just doesn't compute.
However, while I think Joshua needs to learn a little bit more about Dr. Dean, to call him a moron (and use it as a handle) is totally out of line. It's just bad form. There was enough to debate in his words, without taking on his character.
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 18, 2005 9:30:24 AM
Jeff,
Thanks for your nice post.
To go further on him being the new DNC chair. This position is a "a professional cat-herder"; trying to get all the Democrats on the same direction and keeping them. Trust me, I would not want his new job at all.
Yes, I am disappointed that he will not operate DFA and get more grassroots Democrats elected in too those overlooked positions like: dog catcher and road commissioner.
Posted by: Renee | Feb 18, 2005 9:49:10 AM
Is Dean bashing becoming a niche among a small group of Dems/progressives? It seems to follow a format of some name-calling, some insulting, and some handwringing about the future. All to be an attention-getting contrarian.
Posted by: Suzanne | Feb 18, 2005 10:06:26 AM
If Joshua had tried just a bit harder, I think he could have included an offensive personal insult about Howard Dean in every sentence.
Can we please stick to discussing the issues here without personal attacks?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 18, 2005 10:07:17 AM
I was never a Deaniac, Kucinich was my guy, but I can't think of someone more qualified to be DNC chair than Dean. He can lead the party where it needs to go, and is a strong voice when nothing else will do in answer to the outrages of the Shrubbery.
Posted by: Patrick Briggs | Feb 18, 2005 10:10:58 AM
"Progressives should be ashamed to have supported this man. The party shold be ashamed to have promoted him. And our politicians should fear what horrific damage this man is about to do to our chances of electoral victory."
Joshua, your view is clearly a minority view in our party.
If you want to be a Democrat, then you can start by getting out and doing the work that Howard Dean has inspired in so many of us nation-wide.
Walk the talk, Joshua and support local progressive actions. That's the important issue here. Not some silly rant on a DNC Chair you can do nothing to change or whose influence is really going to affect your ability to do good for our party.
By the way, I am a Howard Dean supporter here in Pasadena, CA who found a reason to get into politics for the first time with my wife, met many other like-minded people in our area and have new skills to lead and work for progressive causes.
Democrats need people like us to win. You ought to leave aside your dislike for Dean and join us in the work at hand. It's very fulfilling.
Regards,
Patrick Briggs
Posted by: Patrick Briggs | Feb 18, 2005 10:12:56 AM
Correction to previous post:
Walk the talk, Joshua and support local progressive actions. That's the important issue here. Not some silly rant on a DNC Chair you can do nothing to change or whose influence is not really going to affect your ability to do good for our party.
Posted by: the prof | Feb 18, 2005 10:23:50 AM
Kari,
I request that you remove the "Joshua is a moron" post.
I think it violates the tenor of discussion guidelines that you established a few weeks ago.
Me: not a Deaniac and crossed multiple swords with b!x in a friendly way. But he's DNC chair now and it's time for those DLC-types like myself to get on board.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 18, 2005 10:29:55 AM
I don't think Dean was chosen because he's perceived as a "progressive", even when Republicans and the media would very much like to portray him as one. He was chosen because of his ideas about getting the average Joe's of the world back into the Democratic side.
Posted by: JS | Feb 18, 2005 10:38:43 AM
Something that I think has been overlooked is the fact that Dean is better at standing up for Democrats than most of the party leadership. He's a partisan Democrat. Unlike most Democrats over the past four years, he hasn't rolled over for the Bush Administration, their policies, and their messaging. If you want to call that being a "bulldog," and say it like it's a bad thing, fine.
But then what's your preferred alternative? Who would you rather have as DNC Chair? Someone who is willing to be bullied by Republicans? DNC Chair is a partisan position, and Dean's showing on the national stage indicates, to me, that he's a pretty good fit for the job.
Posted by: Johnny Stine | Feb 18, 2005 10:57:40 AM
Dean signed the Civil Unions Bill into law! - give credit where it is due - there's practically a whole book written on this event by VT press people. It's a great story.
Secondly - I know why Dean lost in Iowa - and frankly it wasn't fair - in part because what he stated about the Iowa cuacuses was true. And activities by the other campaigns wasn't anything less than illegal. Frankly - this system must change. Randomly selecting where this process initiates is the way to remove some of the stagnant elements that permit such bull shit to fester. It was horrible - the things I learned and became infuriated as a result - mainly because there is essentially nothing that can be done about it unless a different system can be adopted.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 18, 2005 10:59:23 AM
Whether you like Dean or not, he's got to be a better chair than McCaullife was. Talk about your three time loser. Not only did McCaullife lose the most recent election, he and the Lieberman wing of the party has gutted the party and turned it into a mush of waffles. At least Howie is willing to stick it to the GOP and not just push for GOP lite policies.
BTW - the art of politics is the art of compromise and moving policies incrementally is the only way things will get moved at the national level.
Posted by: Jeannie | Feb 18, 2005 11:06:56 AM
"And our politicians should fear what horrific damage this man is about to do to our chances of electoral victory."
As opposed to... what? The shining successes of the DINOs who were running the show until Dean came along. I don't think this country will survive much more success on that lowly level.
During the run-up to the DNC chair election, Dean was keeping a very low media profile, and to that end had a standard contract clause allowing him to dictate the terms of media coverage for his public appearances. Most people of his stature retain such rights over their appearances. Once he became chair and it was brought to his attention, the event was thrown open to the media.
The rest of your rant is just too uninformed to even respond to. Dean would have won going away in November -- it wouldn't have even been close. The Republicans knew that all along, and wan DINOs made their usual mistake of falling for the Republicans' fake "glee" at the prospect of Howard becoming the Dem candidates. Howard had them quaking in their boots -- and now he's at it again!
You don't win against bullies by caving; you win by standing up to them.
Posted by: Why | Feb 18, 2005 11:29:47 AM
Can someone wake me up when the conversation shifts to believing the worst about other prominent democrats. I would like to get in a few kicks against Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, Mondale, Kennedy, Johnson, and Dukakis.
Posted by: Hesiod | Feb 18, 2005 11:34:00 AM
You are a classic example of why liberals and Democrats keep getting our asses kicked.
Thanks for nothing, Josh.
Posted by: Joshua | Feb 18, 2005 12:15:41 PM
With this much discussion, I'll have to be scattershot in my approach to defending myself.
1. Most importantly, please leave 'Joshua is a moron' exactly where he/she is. That is absolutely my favorite comment. I will be grievously wounded if it is touched at all. If I can (and I will) call Howard Dean a toad (and worse, though the worse things are on my personal blog) I can stand to be called a moron. Half the time I AM a moron. Nothing wrong with a little nastiness.
2. You all can't decide if I'm secretly a Republican or secretly a hyper-leftist. My beef with Dean isn't that he's not liberal enough, it's that he managed to cast himself as the "progressive" choice when he's clearly not. I also have no intention of leaving the party, now or ever. I merely meant to point out that loyalty to the chairman is not a requirement.
3. In fact, I'm not certain any of YOU are Democrats. Aren't you aware that it is a time-honored tradition to hate other Democrats as much as you hate Republicans? The difference is, in November, you vote for the Democrat.
4. To the person who dismissed the influence of the Chairman -- I'm not concerned that people will pay attention to Dean -- I'm concerned that he will attempt to graft his failed strategy for winning in 2004 onto the party as a whole.
5. So who SHOULD have been chair? Well -- the chairman should have come from west of the Mississippi with a proven track record of winning in a red state (this doesn't make them a DINO, which is so repulsive a concept for the largest and most diverse party in American history to suggest that some democrats are "more" Democratic than others) -- and my personal choice would have been Tom Vilsack if he had pursued it. In the end, I'm praying Governor Vilsack will run for President in 2008.
6. I'm done now. I look forward to more stimulation from you all, but I've Deaned myself as much as I can.
Posted by: Patrick Briggs | Feb 18, 2005 12:37:43 PM
Josh,
I think it's safe to say you look for conflict instead of doing the work of our party. I think we can safely ignore anything else you have to say because it means really very little in the scheme of things.
Patrick
Posted by: Jon | Feb 18, 2005 12:50:48 PM
"Howard had them quaking in their boots -- and now he's at it again!"
Hardly. Dean getting DNC chair is the best thing to ever happen to the Republicans. He will take your party "over the edge" to the left, and Republicans will win again.
Posted by: hawksan | Feb 18, 2005 1:10:31 PM
Get over it already -- the blackout is old news, and no longer pertinant anyway. Dean shifted his stance after being elected DNC Chair.
Dean's just what we need --- a Fighting Moderate who will go the distance with the grassroots, and stand his ground and push back against the Republican oppostion. Furthermore he'll do this while uniting us around the bedrock values of the Democratic Party -- Values we share with most Americans!
Posted by: Ed | Feb 18, 2005 1:19:10 PM
You're kidding, right? It isn't about issues. It isn't about "being progressive." It's about being the anti-fascist...and...most importantly...WINNING.
And no, Dems shouldn't hate each other then vote the correct way in November. They need to be on the same page all the time at least at the Federal level.
Again, it is about WINNING.
Posted by: georgia | Feb 18, 2005 2:50:42 PM
Just to chime in on the topic that I think got kind of overshadowed: the media.
Whatever my feelings on Dean and his policies (luke warm, for the record) -- I am kind of appalled that he would EVER have a media blackout. I understand about the scream being taken out of context, but the fact is that hiding from the press, particularly small non-TV press, doesn't seem like a very good way for a progressive to behave. I mean, we want an informed electorate, don't we?
Posted by: Why | Feb 18, 2005 2:58:18 PM
Why aren't you happy that the "arrogant, secretive and authoritarian toad" isn't running for president in 2008? Maybe you could accept that the guy honestly cares about helping the party and isn't out to be the next Musolini.
I think a lot of people are still confused about the Trippi manufactured image and Dean himself. The key is to listen to what Dean actually says and does. Trippi had Dean do a lot of meaningless posturing for progressives -- but on the issues Dean has always been a pragmatic moderate unafraid to tell you what he thinks.
I too am hoping that the scraggly ball sack from Iowa runs in 2008. Maybe that way no one will campaign for the stupid caucuses and we can start the presidential campaign in a primary state.
Posted by: JS | Feb 18, 2005 3:00:49 PM
Dean getting DNC chair is the best thing to ever happen to the Republicans. He will take your party "over the edge" to the left, and Republicans will win again.
Thanks for the brilliant analysis, Jon.
Just to chime in on the topic that I think got kind of overshadowed: the media.
Georgia--most here are arguing that the media blackout is a non-issue. After a brief lapse, and nobody knows why, the media was invited to the event. Non-issue. Period.
Posted by: MW | Feb 18, 2005 3:49:07 PM
Wow, I was going to read this article, until I choked on the vitriol contained in just the first paragraph. Howard Dean a "toad"? If "progressive" = sophomoric commentary with no demonstrated basis in facts, shit, I'll have to start drinking the Kool-Aid and find me some intelligent discourse.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Feb 18, 2005 9:11:07 PM
At least he did until they frog-walked his police blotter ass out of the Schnitz. You can count on the networks getting THAT on tape, at least.
I mean, forgive me for going all NW 23rd over this, but is it too freaking much to ask that if you're going to rush the stage and go upside the talking point dispenser, that you mix in some personal hygiene for your inevitable network cameo?
Posted by: Jenny Greenleaf | Feb 18, 2005 10:45:44 PM
Dean may be controversial, but you can't argue with success. According to today's press release from the DNC:
Washington, D.C. - Democrats.org, the online home of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), has experienced 120% jump in the number of daily visitors since Governor Howard Dean was elected Democratic Party Chairman this past weekend. Democrats from all 50 states have signed on to Dean's plan for the Party, and are offering their own ideas.The huge spike in interest from Democrats across the country was matched by an increase in new members -- the rate of new people joining the Democratic Party online has jumped by over 60% since Governor Dean took office. These dramatic results reflect Governor Dean's strength in the grassroots community and his ability to bring new people into the political process.
DPO staff and officers met with Dean while he was here. I blogged a bit about it at The American Street.
I like Dean. He's easy to talk to and sincerely focused on building the party and getting Democrats elected.
Posted by: Sid Anderson | Feb 18, 2005 11:33:32 PM
Media blackout schmackout. It was the debate that got my interest, so I went. Although I was tired, I did my best to write a biased summary here of the debate. Unfortunately quite a few trolls have showed up in the comments section.
I thought Dean did a great job. He made people laugh and every time Perle tried to put the Democrats in a box, Dean wouldn't let him. Dean did a much better job at creating a big picture about national security than Perle did. Perle focused on the threats and the narrow neocon solution to dealing with the threats. Dean took a much broader approach.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Feb 19, 2005 1:44:41 AM
Jeff put it very well. I'll also add that the 'tradition' of infighting is not confined to any party, nor does tradition bestow merit upon the argument of every infighter.
I don't get stuck in the 3-label mud in politics. People are rarely that simply defined. I'd call Dean a pragmatic populist, above all. And populists gain that title by listening and responding, which many progressive politicians fail to do.
Incensed by his initial media blackout? I'd suggest you contact him and ask why it was there to begin with. As it is, it appears you're taking a previous bias and passing sentence without asking the condemned man for his defense. I don't believe Dean would convict without hearing a defendant speak.
Look, I remained a skeptic because some of the Dean support seemed to be rooted in faddism. But he gained my enthusiastic support just two months before meltdown. He was definitely an effective governor with a pretty decent track record. And even his dumber comments weren't necessarily falsehoods.
I also don't agree that winning office is all that's important to politics though it's certainly a desirable outcome. The much-beloved Clinton actually drove me to become an independent because of my perception that he compromised on some principles that no one should. Gore didn't lure me back. Both Dean and Kerry drew me back. I don't expect perfection from either and have some complaints about both, but they both can make me proud to be a Democrat most of the time, unlike many others.
Finally, I'd add that the art of persuasion in political circles is not enhanced by going after popular favorites after they've won. What's the point of marginalizing yourself with excessive rhetoric? Questioning his media policy without the heat would seem to be a more effective way to engage your peers.
Posted by: oakland | Feb 19, 2005 3:52:48 AM
Joshua,
It is obvious you don't know anything about Gov.
Dean. I would suspect you really are a Republican stirring the pot. If you aren't a Republican, you ought to be. And please take Jomentum with you.
Posted by: ceci | Feb 19, 2005 8:34:33 AM
The shoe flew at Perle...not Dean.
Maybe it hit you Josh, on the head, before landing on the stage.
Your posting is incoherent and overtly malicious.
What a pack of nonsense.
Governor Dean is the best thing to have happened to the Democrats in memory. They finally recognized it by electing him Chair of the DNC. Maybe like them, you will eventually come around to recognizing your wrong ways.
Posted by: Dean F | Feb 19, 2005 9:24:55 AM
"If support for Dean is now a requirement for loving the Party than I will gladly leave."
Joshua, please do the party and favor and DO leave. With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans? We have had enough of Republicrats infesting the party. To devote a total thread on a non-issue instead of focusing on all teh very important life-impacting issues, certainly qualifies you to be a full-fledged Republican as it is strictly from their playbook.
So, we got it that you can't stand the guy. Likely you have never spent time talking to him in person.
[Off-topic personal attack and response deleted. -Editor.]
I don't agree with Dean on several issues, but he sure as heck breathed life into this dead party. Kerry wouldn't have had a chance without Dean, nor raised any of the money he did if Dean hadn't spark a fire under Democrats. It was the DFA people that went to the DNC and Kerry meetups and got things organized and got out the vote. Kerry had big funders but no organization until Dean supporters transferred their efforts over to him.
Remember how Kerry was polling 8% and had to fund his campaign with $6 million of his own? If the party insiders hadn't destroyed Dean with their unethical backdoor dealing in Iowa, we would have a Democrat as president now instead of a chimp.
Dean may not be as progressive as me, but he is inspiring and attracts people from all backgrounds and parties including Republicans.
Continue to spew your vitriol without any factual basis. It becomes less a commentary on Dean and more a commentary on your and your true motivations.
Posted by: Dean F | Feb 19, 2005 9:28:54 AM
"The much-beloved Clinton actually drove me to become an independent because of my perception that he compromised on some principles that no one should."
Excellent point Kevin. Couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Dean F | Feb 19, 2005 9:40:08 AM
Dean inspired a lot of people. Good. But he inspired the wrong people. He inspired progressive young people who, shocker of shockers, failed to show up for him in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire."
[Off-topic personal attack and response deleted. -Editor.]
Do you ever read Dean's blog or attend a meetup? You would be hard pressed to find many supporters under 30. The vast majority 85% are NOT 20 somethings. Again, you choose to believe what you want to.
So you love Kerry. Fine. Then do him a favor in his 08 run and start supporting the man who will help Kerry or whoever the nominee is more than anyone. You destroy Dean, you destroy Kerry.
Notice what integrity Dean had fighting for Kerry after Kerry and the Dem insiders destroyed him? Frankly, Kerry lost because in all his vicious unethical, likely illegal activities he rolled out to get the nomination, he failed to realize one thing. As ruthless as he could be, Bush & Co. were better at it. I met life long Democrats all over the country who were so upset at the choice of Kerry they voted for Bush. And no, they weren't Dean supporters. They were Clark, Gephardt and other candidate's supporters. At least Dean got the majority of his folks to vote for Kerry and work for him.
By the way, how can you criticize Dean on not being a progressive but support Kerry for 6 years...the very same years he voted for Every Child Left Behind, The Anti-Patriot Act, The Let's Kill all Iraqis war, and the Homeland No Security Act? If that is what you call a progressive, I would be curious to know what you consider a fascist?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Feb 18, 2005 1:23:31 AM
While I would side with those who believe that Dean's apparent standing policy regrding press access to events such as this one, I would however like to point out that reportedly the reason it changed was because Dean was elected DNC chair, and so he considered his role to have changed.
As I said, I think the previous policy was rather stupid (if only because Dean, of all people, should know that there would just be bloggers at the events anyway and they'd quote and report whatever they damn well wanted to), but I have noticed that some media reports on this blackout were munging what apear to be the facts.