'Democrats fury, and values, go AWOL' - a pro-Dean rant

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcoc114110904jan11,0,3004221.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Democrats' fury, and values, go AWOL
Marie Cocco
Newsday

January 11, 2005

I've been thinking a lot lately about Howard Dean.

A year ago, the Democratic establishment was openly vexed at the prospect that Dean, the former Vermont governor who led an insurgent campaign for president, might win the Iowa caucuses and so be catapulted to the Democratic nomination. As it happens, Dean lost badly in Iowa and then imploded spectacularly.

I did not think highly of Dean's candidacy, nor of the legions of Deaniacs who were mostly young and inexperienced at politics and so thought they knew better than the old and experienced. But I understand what drove their fury.

And I have been thinking about Dean lately because I've been thinking about the Democratic response - rather, the stunning lack of one - to the Alberto Gonzales nomination.

(snip)

The Democrats are, of course, opposed to torture. They have, they say, "serious questions" or "grave concerns" or "deep reservations" about Gonzales' record on the subject. And they are, most all of them, planning to vote for him anyway.

Just like most of them voted to give the president authority to invade Iraq, even though they had serious questions and grave concerns and deep reservations about that, too. The Iraq war vote, more than anything, is what ignited the Dean insurgency. There was this sense - a correct one - that Democrats in Washington would not stand up to stop George W. Bush even when they sensed the president was driving us over a precipice.

Now these senators are poised to take the following position: They are against torture but they are for the man who set the stage for torture.

The Democrats lost the presidential election in part because they aren't trusted on national security. How is this problem solved by embracing one of the administration's worst foreign policy failures?

What did acquiescing on Iraq get the Democrats? Substantively, they are complicit in the misadventure and will be part of the political generation that must spend the next decade or two digging out from the rubble. And politically? The Democrats lost seats in Congress and the contest for president, too.

Enabling the Bush administration's habit of escaping accountability for even the grossest failure isn't smart politics. It's cowardice. If Democrats are to compete on the political turf of values, they'd better find some they stand for.

...more...

[BurtWorm]

1. Amen!

My sentiments almost exactly. (I was for Dean last year, and I'm still sickened by the go-along-to-get-along Dems in Congress.)

[forintegrity]

2. I also just finished reading this article and thought

a copy should be sent to all our Democratic Reps and Senators!

Gonzalez is bad news and I jut don't get why they aren't making more of a stink about this man and his tactics.

If he gets nominated we are in real deep trouble!!!

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Their concerns are not "grave" enough....

their reservations not sufficiently "deep".

It would also help if they could employ less cliched terminology to communicate their alleged concern and reservations.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. Good Lord!....

"There was this sense - a correct one - that Democrats in Washington would not stand up to stop George W. Bush even when they sensed the president was driving us over a precipice."

Don't change horses....even if those horses are headed straight for a cliff...

[Jim Sagle]

5. The only reservations DC Dems care about are their reservations for lunch.

[bling bling]

6. More:

"No senator has come forward to oppose Gonzales. Senate Republicans coalesce around their commander-in-chief. Senate Democrats coalesce around a strategy of convenient fecklessness." <snip>

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad.

[WillyT]

7. And Here We Sit, Broken-Hearted...

tried to fight tyranny, but only farted.

I'm goin to the bar.

:beer:

[WilliamPitt]

10. I just peed on myself a little bit

:)

[quaoar]

8. Dean was one of the few willing to stand and fight

There was this sense - a correct one - that Democrats in Washington would not stand up to stop George W. Bush even when they sensed the president was driving us over a precipice.

Precisely. This is what propelled Dean to the forefront -- he was willing to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. We wanted someone who would confront Bush instead of someone who would try to finesse him.

[WilliamPitt]

9. .

[TheDonkey]

11. Very true, really a good piece.

Maybe it needs to take a Dean for this party to become firm and cut an agenda unique of their own. Republicans are constantly shaping the debate and shoving Democrats into line, we do need some change on that front.