|
Ms. Cocco:
Thanks for your interesting column about Howard Dean's campaign. It appears to me that you prefer Wesley Clark or John Kerry to Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee. Or maybe you're among the "solid gold" Bush supporters.
If you prefer Clark or Kerry, fine. Either one, to me, would be vastly preferable to the clothing-free emperor that we have now.
Certainly Al Gore's endorsement doesn't cinch it for Dean. That's OK. But let's not run down Al Gore, who got 500,000 more votes than the current resident of the White House.
From your column:
"Capturing the presidency requires a candidate who can unseat an incumbent president whose own base of support is solid gold. Whose donors are a platinum card. Whose overall approval among the general public remains respectable. Quite respectable, considering that we've had three years of economic unevenness, of terrorism and war, of tattered alliances abroad and gifts to corporate interests at home that make even some Republicans wince. And the public likes the guy."
A lot of people say Bush is likeable. In fact a dedicated Dean volunteer told me that she personally met Bush and found him personally likeable. Con men are naturally likeable. Despite the news media's slavish adulation of Bush, I and a lot of other citizens see some disturbing problems with the Bush team. The fact is, at its very core, this administration is completely rotten.
Howard Dean understands this. And he's not afraid to say it.
You have several negative points to make about Dean, none of which are backed up by facts. It sounds like you've been watching too much "mainstream media". As I said in an e-mail to David Brooks, if you're going to write about the guy, at least do some research. Don't just spout the press talking points of the week.
You say: "He is also indisputably short on the stuff it takes to appeal to the majority of voters - even many Democratic voters - who care more about maintaining a middle-class life in an age of shrinking supports for it than they do about their modem speed."
Dean supporters care a lot about maintaining a middle-class life. We also care about a shrinking middle class. That's why, like Howard Dean, we support repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, a balanced budget, health care and education. We agree that the other Democratic candidates think these things are important too. But there's a difference.
There are reason the middle class is shrinking, pollution is increasing, and corporate crime seems the rule rather than the exception: This is the culmination of over 20 years of an ever more aggressive right-wing and corporate takeover of the United States of America, beginning in the 1980's. The Bush administration is only the culmination of this program. The Bush administration IS corporate America personified.
Half-measures and compromise are not good enough any more. Look at how Teddy Kennedy got stiffed by the Republican storm troopers, after trying to negotiate in good faith on the Medicare bill. Watch how they browbeat members of their own party into submission on the House floor. Can you say threats and bribery?
How can any reasonable person not be angry at the sheer effrontery of a president, installed by fiat, ruling on a non-plurality, non-mandate, pushing the most extreme right-wing, robber-baron agenda since the McKinley administration, more corrupt and incompetent than the Harding administration?
Dean is like a lot of politically aware people who went merrily through the Clinton years believing that free trade was good for us, that corporations were honest, that United States was an example of moral leadership for the world. We are now completely disillusioned. But we are very, very determined. Howard Dean is like us.
Yes, our positions can and do evolve. We can't run a campaign on bare ideology and completely disregard facts, the way Bush does. Dean began his run for the Presidency as a moderate doctor with health care as his leading issue. Two years ago, I thought Bush was doing a passable job. The failure of the Bush administration on all fronts has really dashed cold water on us.
There are emerging two camps of people in this country. Those who ignore reality when it doesn't support their ideology, and those who are open to reality. Dean supporters are very much interested in reality. We are NOT cultish followers. That tag is more appropriate for the lock-step legions of the Right and syncophantic pimps of the press. We have examined Dean's positions and found them pretty damn good.
But the exact programs of a Democratic candidate are not the most important factor. How much of a program is a Democratic President likely to enact, with Republican majorities in Congress? The important point is a candidate that is open to the facts and open to reality. A candidate that really will stand up to the right wing and corporate interests. A candidate that doesn't have an ideological axe to grind.
Flip-flops can be a measure of political opportunism, or a measure of being smart enough to adapt to reality. That's what successful human beings do. The press' favorite "gotcha" politics has just led us into the gutter. No issue can be intelligently discussed when the press is only interested in "gotcha". Just look at Ted Koppel's disgraceful performance in the so-called "debate" Tuesday night.
As to Dean's records, I'm sure he would cheerfully release them as soon as former Governor Bush releases his.
Dean's campaign is not driven on anti-war fervor. The war is a fact. It's not over but Dean agrees we can't withdraw. At the same time, Bush appears to be preparing a premature skedaddle, just in time for the 2004 election. Never mind if we end up with Saddam II in Baghdad in 2005, Bush only wants his four more years.
If Congress wants to really retain middle-class tax cuts, I'm sure Dean will work with them. But Dean is calling on all of us to "ask not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". I for one, am willing to sacrifice my tax cut for the good of the country.
As to Bush's economy, the unemployed can't eat statistics. The growth in statistics may be making Bill Gates rich, but it's not helping the unemployed.
And where in the world does anybody get the idea that Bush is "strong on national security"? What a joke. Where's Osama? Where's Saddam? Where are our allies? Winning two wars with Bill Clinton's military and losing the peace doesn't make the grade, in my book. The Army is less ready for any real threat than at any time since 1973. Sure, Wesley Clark and John Kerry have sterling credentials. If either wins the nomination I'll cheerfully vote for him.
You say Dean supporters "... seem ready to indulge their fondest fantasies. It's a luxury Republicans don't allow themselves." Well, Bush had to be the Republicans' fondest fantasy. A malleable happy face to mask the most greedy, destructive, self-serving interest groups this country has ever seen. He didn't win the election, but he sure fought hard enough to take the White House.
This time we're going to fight back.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(759 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
