« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

The return of Steve Perry (well, a link anyway)

by Mark Gisleson

Real live content from Steve Perry to close out the old year: "The Accidental Populist: Howard Dean vs. the democratic establishment."

The grand irony in the case of Howard Dean vs. the Democratic Leadership Council is that it's not at all clear that Dean ever seriously meant to take on the Democratic party establishment, or that he will even carry through with the battle. He talked a tough anti-establishment line out of the gate, yes, but that was the smart outsider play, and Dean's candidacy had struck party sultans as a bit of trivia from the start. As governor of Vermont and already as a presidential aspirant, Dean has tended to speak boldly first and tack practically to the right when under fire. It isn't hard to imagine his fashioning a rapprochement with the party elite as his campaign flourished.

If he had been allowed to, that is. But the party blew it. The DNC's controlling junta--the Clinton/McAuliffe New (business) Democrats--consistently underestimated Dean's appeal and treated him with such raw contempt as to make an alliance impossible in the near term. They tried very hard to derail him instead, which is why so many party regulars have labored to breathe life into the listless, late-entry bid by Wesley Clark. (Gore Vidal on Clark: "I don't like these men of great accomplishment who've accomplished nothing, and who mean nothing.") And for what it's worth, the DLC's principal attack hound, Tailgunner Joe Lieberman, has shown no signs of relenting in his verbal assaults. In one of those bits of doublespeak for which Democrats are rightly as cherished as Republicans, Lieberman decreed that Dean's opposition to the war and to Democratic complicity in it proved him a "divisive" force in politics.

Dean, meanwhile, has conducted a back-channel outreach to many prominent Democrats, resulting most famously in his December 9 endorsement by Al Gore. The question of the hour is whether Dean is trying to wrestle the party into embracing him or to take it over. He is on record loudly intimating the latter, but--well, this is American politics, and people say a lot of things. More tellingly, perhaps, there are many in and around the national Democratic fold who really do believe that Gore and Dean have it in mind to take the party away from the DLC once and for all.

[more]

Still more on Dean from Michael Tomasky:

Some of the criticisms of Dean have crossed the line. Joe Lieberman in particular has behaved appallingly. No Democratic candidate should ever say that Democrat X can't win in November, as Lieberman has said and/or hinted repeatedly of Dean....But for whatever reason, St. Joe enjoys the protective immunity of the pundit class, so he'll never be reproached for his behavior in the way that he deserves. Criticisms and attacks are fine, but saying, repeatedly, that a member of one's own party will lose in November is way, way, way out of line -- it's the kind of mischief one would have expected from Al Sharpton.

And, because Lieberman's pundit protectors seem intent on equating him with the Clintons, it should be noted that the Clintons, however they may feel privately about this race in general and about Dean in particular, have publicly spoken very differently than Lieberman has. Bill Clinton told me for the November issue of the Prospect: "I don't believe that either side should be saying, 'I'm a real Democrat and the other one's not,' or, 'I'm a winning Democrat and the other one's not.' . . . [T]hese kind of ad hominem attacks . . . are dead-bang losers." The first formulation is an implicit criticism of Dean, to be sure; but the second one is an equally clear warning against the kind of game Lieberman has been playing. As for Hillary, she was asked point-blank in early December if Dean could beat George W. Bush. She did not equivocate or play any kind of coy game. "Sure," she said. "Absolutely. Any of our candidates can. Whoever emerges from this nominating process will be a competitive candidate. … We can put together a winning combination to take back the White House, and that's what I'm going to work on."

So Lieberman -- and, to a lesser extent, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry -- are playing dirty pool.

* *

Don’t know why I read economist/pundit Robert Samuelson yesterday, but my blood pressure is still elevated. I’d love to say that of all the media whores he’s the most clueless, but the fact is, as I suspect is usually the case in these matters, he’s simply the most loyal to RNC talking points. No Bob, I don’t hate Bush. But if you don’t shut up and try reporting actual economic news for a change, I may find it impossible not to hate you.

Even the Washington Post op-ed pages occasionally find it necessary to distance themselves from the Bushies. This editorial on Nick Smith is the kind of thing I used to expect from the paper that broke Watergate. But that was a long time ago, and I suspect it will be quite a while before the WaPost runs anything else I like this much. As this snippet indicates, this is still an important story:

[W]hat happened to Mr. Smith was no more than hardball-as-usual on a close and important vote. True, lawmakers understand full well when they cast a critical vote that it is apt to affect their ability to obtain campaign contributions from the affected industries or interest groups. Yet there is a distinction between an implicit understanding of the likely financial consequences of an important vote and an explicit quid pro quo of campaign cash for a vote the desired way. The federal bribery statute makes it a crime to offer "anything of value" to a public official "with intent to influence any official act."

Corruption of course is best measured by the results, not the cloakroom deals that weaken regulations and laws. Jeff St. Clair's "Inside Big Meat" speaks to the bottom line corruption inherent in deregulation. Not for the queasy. Hell, I'm a farm kid and this one had me reaching for the tofu.

The Bushies are notorious for not tolerating dissent within their ranks, and Kuro5hin reports that Free Republic takes a similar approach to non-conforming posts.

* *

Various takes on John Ashcroft's recusal:

Tapped's Matt Yglesias

Josh Marshall's first take, and second take

Billmon

TalkLeft, on the recusal, and linking to an LA Weekly interview with Joe Wilson

Mark A.R. Kleiman

Juan Coleman

* *

The Army has dropped the major charges against Staff Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany, but his fate is still undecided. Pogany is the poor schmuck who repeatedly asked for counseling then freaked out while on patrol in Iraq, and as a result was looking at a court-martial.

War is a cruel and unusual thing. My vote for the most stirring war story of 2003 has nothing to do with Iraq, however. After fifty years in captivity in the North Korean gulag, Jeon Yong-il escaped and, after South Korean intervention with Chinese authorities, was allowed to return home to South Korea. Read the Telegraph story for details of the touching reunion and financially happy ending.

Jimmy Breslin and Col. David Hackworth (ret.) both look at the body count from George's big adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Juan Cole on Basra and the harassment of Christians, vigilante justice, and the US media blackout on any part of Iraq not controlled by US troops.

* *

If I don't post tomorrow, you'll know I had a good time tonight.

Posted by Steve Perry at December 31, 2003 10:33 AM

« Numbers all add up to rich getting richer | Main | New Year's offering »