08/28/2002 Archived Entry: "The Guardian on Howard Dean"
An alternative to Bush is demanding to be heard: The first Democrat has declared his candidacy for 2004.
He sounds like a Clinton third wayer without the torment. Could this be the voice that, if heard often enough, will at least remind Americans that Bush's incoherent nationalism and vested interest economics are not the only message they need put up with?
"I'm much more conservative than President Bush on money," Mr Dean told me. Bush's failure to balance the budget, "with $200bn deficits as far as the eye can see", was the mistake of a profligate Reaganite believer in "voodoo supply-side economics". No Republican had balanced the budget since Richard Nixon. Dean, governor for 11 years, has balanced the Vermont budget with the messianic rigour of a Gordon Brown. Bush's failure to do the same puts America, he says, in the same category as an IMF defaulter. "This federal government is no more responsible than Argentina," he declared... Possibly Howard Dean's greatest virtue is that he can speak. He has a voice. It is orderly, clear and unagonised. It says if you want an alternative that is truer than Bush to the great American dream of standing for a better world, here he is. There are worse beginnings for a candidacy.
Replies: 19 comments
There's a really great roundup of the Dean articles on Political Wire:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/000061.html
Posted by Alan @ 08/28/2002 09:48 AM PST
Some folks at the (sorely missed) Political Wire comments board were promoting Dean a while back as a presidential possibility; I dismissed the idea for the same reason many pundits have ("Howard Who...?"). But then I started running into Dean interviews, first on Inside Politics, then with Russert -- and I'm really sold on him. He's the first Dem candidate I've seen since Clinton who can speak intelligently but directly, and without a trace of condescension. His ideas are right where America is at this moment (esp. as outlined in the Judis Dem Majority book), and I can see him connecting solidly with voters. He's also very good at gliding past the rhetorical traps...Russert tried to "gotcha" him a bunch of times, and wasn't able to nail him once. His one drawback is the lack of foreign policy on his resume -- though, like Clinton, he's widely traveled, and needless to say he tops Bush by a country mile. I think he rates serious consideration as the '04 candidate.
Posted by demtom @ 08/28/2002 10:46 AM PST
i dont care who get the democratic nomination im votin for him
Posted by Real Michaud @ 08/28/2002 11:12 AM PST
If I had to make a choice among probable candidates (if I HAD to-I'm staying neutral) to support, it would probably be Dean. The guy seems to be brilliant, and would make a great President for sure. Still, I don't think he'll make it past the primary. He's unknown and unfunded, and you need one or the other to win.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/28/2002 11:15 AM PST
hey Howard, how come your buddy Tom Daschle and his Democratic pseudomajority in the Senate hasn't balanced the budget?
Posted by RWG @ 08/28/2002 12:07 PM PST
Have the GOP ever balanced the budget?
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/28/2002 12:09 PM PST
Have the Democrats ever?
Posted by RWG @ 08/28/2002 12:42 PM PST
Yes, the two balanced budgets of the last 30 years were both by Democrats. Prior to Nixon, DC didn't seem to have a problem living under a budget. Dean is right, Bush, Bush, and Reagan are the most fiscally irresponsible Presidents of recent memory. Sure, they had a Dem congress, yawn... like the big brother blaming his little sister for eating cookies too, after he took the jar down that she couldn't reach. Stretch back to Eisenhower for a Republican President that knows how to balance a budget. Dean's balanced every budget he's ever had, all Bush knows how to do is spend spend spend...
Posted by myDD @ 08/28/2002 01:00 PM PST
demtom - it's these stupid comments that probably caused political wire to end the discussion board.
Posted by Alan @ 08/28/2002 01:04 PM PST
Yes. I think Vermont is the only state that does not require a balanced budget. I think Nixon and Kennedy produced balanced budget...I think it was 1961 for Kennedy and 1971 for Nixon?
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/28/2002 01:05 PM PST
It definitely was, Alan. I was in touch with Taegan, and he said how disappointed he was that the discussion had so degenerated (the day he cut it off had seen an intense flame war between ignoramuses on both ends of the political spectrum). He said he'd never intended the site to be primarily discussion anyway, so he just stopped it on the spot.
This site seems to feature MOSTLY respectable discussion. I suppose I should keep quiet about that -- trolls are always on the alert to find new turf to trash.
Posted by demtom @ 08/28/2002 01:28 PM PST
Hate to interrupt the Dean lovefest but if anyone is interested in real possibilities a poll over the weekend showed Pryor 10 points up on Hutchinson. Another poll showed Janklow slightly behind in his Governor-to-House bid, and a Miami Herald poll showed McBride 3 points down to Reno.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 08/28/2002 02:17 PM PST
Yes, I agree we need to focus on 2002 right now and not on 2004.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/28/2002 02:23 PM PST
Dean could be appealing in 2004 if the nation's voters are looking for an alternative to stale Washington insiders. He does appear to speak frankly (something not always common in Washington) and appears thoughtful and engaging.
Dean's lack of foreign policy credentials, mentioned on these boards by another observer, could also be a serious weakness if Bush's Iraq war and other foreign policy bungles are high on the list of voter concerns in 2004.
In addition, Dean sounds as hawkish on war and defense spending as Bush, Daschle, Cheney, Lieberman, etc. That certainly won't endear him to the left of the Democratic party, a segment still searching for a champion in a party nearly as corrupt, corporate and warlike as the GOP.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/28/2002 03:48 PM PST
We do need to focus on 2002 right now, but I think myDD needs to also keep up with the "Dean lovefest". The reason is that this site (and in particular the Howard Dean page) has been recognized as the de-facto unofficial Howard Dean for President site.
As for foreign policy, Dean himself has been to 60 countries, so he is already more worldly than Bush. Dean has shown essentially unqualified support for the "war on terror", but I don't think that extends to Iraq. His overall philosophy is that America should be much more active in fostoring democracy, as opposed to Bush's isolationism/war philosophy.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie @ 08/28/2002 04:14 PM PST
When is Dean on Russert again? I'd like to see him talk.
Posted by RUDY @ 08/29/2002 06:05 PM PST
I would like to jump on the Dean bandwagon (a rather small vehicle now, but still...). He impressed me greatly on Russert's show.
Real Michaud -- I agree with you to a point. However, I would have a very, very, very hard time voting for Joe Lieberman for president. As much as I think it would be cool to have a Jewish president (although I'm neither Jewish nor Christian myself), Lieberman is way too much of a holy roller conservative for my taste.
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/29/2002 10:25 PM PST
Agreed, Oregonian. I think Lieberman is the only Dem running who could make me vote for the Greens. (Well, Sharpton...)
Posted by RParker @ 08/30/2002 08:18 AM PST
The race will be between Al Gore and John Kerry and that will be a good battle
Posted by GaDem @ 08/30/2002 09:06 AM PST
