I am not a fan of Howard Dean. In fact, I am not certain I even like him. This sort of admission is rare for me; I make a real effort to like people. But there is just something about Mr. Dean's irrational pugnacity that I dislike; he evokes in me the same sort of reaction I get when I hear James Carville or Paul Begala speak: I sense that they will say ANYTHING in order to win.
And to curtail any criticism that I am partisan in my dislike, let me say I am also no adorer of John McCain. But I do find myself liking McCain more this morning precisely because of what Howard Dean said in a release sent to the Democratic Party faithful:
"The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years." [emphasis mine]
John McCain a "blatant opportunist"? Really?
One wonders how Mr. Dean can be so wrong. For surely John McCain was not being opportunistic when he made his apparent statement that the US would be in Iraq for a 100 years: this odd sort of opportunism can only be seen as a man who marches to the beat of his own very singular convictions. Isn't the blatant opportunist that guy who jumps on a sudden, popular mood-swing and shouts that he's been feeling similarly? Isn't a blatant opportunist that guy who embraces the popular, especially that padded by recent polls? What's so opportunistic in telling the American voter that Iraq might be a 100-year struggle? And what's so opportunistic about being a Bush supporter in matters of national defense? Isn't President Bush loathed by everybody on the planet? Does Howard Dean even know what it means to be an "opportunist"?†
Oops!
But the facts on the ground, as they might say in military circles, give the lie to Mr. Dean's over-wrought pronouncement. John McCain was not saying that American troops should or would be engaged in military conflict in Iraq for 100 years. He was saying that he could justify an American presence in that country for 100 years, a presence identical to that which the Americans have in South Korea and Germany, you know, a post-conflict presence as peace-keeper, humanitarian and deterrent. Amazingly, Howard Dean and many anti-war protesters forget or ignore the real fact that Harry Truman's troops are still in Korea and Germany (not that they are really Truman's troops, but you get the picture). Plus, it is clear Mr. Dean is choosing to mislead because he hears in Mr. McCain's words a real threat: McCain is telling the truth, while Mr. Dean and those he wants to influence not only stop their ears, they muzzle those who speak plainly, even those in their own party.
But thanks be to ABC News' Jake Tapper (and the WSJ's James Taranto), for directing me (indirectly) to this quote from Howard Dean from 2004, when Dean was stumping for John Kerry:
"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"
Dean, perhaps blinded by his own sycophancy, clearly gives us fodder for ridicule, for clearly his man in 2004, John Kerry, never rose above the level of a blatant opportunist, at least when it came to throwing up his war credentials as points of honor. If John McCain is an opportunist for reminding us that he has military street cred, then what was John Kerry in 2004? (Taranto makes this point to greater effect, by the way.)
But more importantly, nothing proves that the blatant opportunist in all of this is Howard Dean himself.
Oops!
And to top things off, Mr. Dean mocks Mr. McCain's apparent lack of economic erudition. That's rich, indeed.
Isn't it self-evident that when Americans consider the paragons of all things economic, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean are not the first -- or even the second, fifth or tenth -- names that come to mind?
Oops, again.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
†(Special thanks to Mort Kondracke, who made similar points last night on "Special Report.")
3 comments:
It so happens I received a "personal" appeal from Mr. Dean just yesterday. This is to be expected as he informed me that I am a "local grass roots" (read lower than dog poop) leader.
Anyhow, Mr. Dean informed me that Mr. McCain had pledged to keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years. Aside from the fact that McCain pledged no such thing, I marveled at how absurd such a promise might be, in the face of Congress, presidential term limits and the like.
As you point out, politicians are either too stupid to remember what they say or, more probably, believe that the American people are too stupid to remember what politicians say.
As for me, this quadrennial nightmare gives me a headache.
Cheers.
Howard Dean: an appropriate subject for April Fool's Day.
Howard Dean is a man uniquely qualified for the position he holds. As Chairman of the DNC, his job is purely political. At least when Clinton, Obama, or McCain make a policy statement, there is some or should be some notion of administrative practicality that tempers their rhetoric, but with Dean, who has but one job, to get his boy or girl elected, he will say or do anything, spin it any way he sees fit, and ultimately we find, speak in a way that is decidedly untethered from reality.
Post a Comment