Dean, Dean, the Dancing Machine

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont and Democratic Presidential Candidate, has been making a lot of noise lately.

In response to beloved PA Senator Rick Santorum's comments likening sodomy to incest and polygamy, he has written two statements condemning Santorum's statements and calling for Santorum's resignation from his position of leadership in the Senate. He has done so with strong language that implicates the President, who has kept silent on this bigotry eruption, in this issue.

Gov. Dean has smartly framed the issue in terms that will work for him. For example, he uses the words unfit, divisive, inflammatory, and gay- bashing to describe Santorum and his comments. He also defined his own position as speaking up for those under attack, and supporting the American ideal of equality and equal protection. I think this is very good.

On Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Dean was asked whether he feels differently about the Iraq war in retrospect and said he did not. He also responded to one of Wold Blitzer's questions that he wasn't sure that Iraq was better of after Saddam. Now, this is really a moment in which Dean establishes himself as a person with integrity. It is incredibly risky to for so much as a second question whether or not a Post-Saddam Iraq is better off, despite the fact that the country is in chaos, its infrastructure is badly damaged, and the Iranian government seems to be angling for making Iraq its client state. Dean said an unsayable truth, in my opinion. Which is not to say that Iraq is doomed, by any stretch of the imagination. I am somewhat confident that Iraq will turn out better than Afghanistan, but that's not saying too much.

It could be that this will harm Dean. He'll be called pro-Saddam, etc. But I think that this demonstrates a few things, mainly that Dean is capable of thinking in shades of grey, that he's not afraid to say things that will be misinterpreted, that he won't walk away from previous positions. Predictably, I'm leaning toward Dean in the primary. I honestly think a Howard Dean-Wesley Clark ticket would be very hard to beat. It's got all the bases covered. In a presidential election, a Dean-Clark ticket would activate the Dem base. Clark is a Southerner and would draw support there and from swing voters who would otherwise think Dems soft on Nat'l Security issues. Dean's politics are fairly moderate, but he espouses them passionately, unlike many in the Dem pack (like Gephardt or Lieberman) who could be credibly labeled Republican-lite. And Dean is a strong public speaker. And a doctor.

Here's a quote from CNN.com that in itself makes the case that Bush can be beaten:"Private non-farm payrolls are 2.6 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research say a recession began."

2 important things there. 1) that the economy has lost 2.6 million jobs since the beginning of Bush II's presidency. 2) that this is, counter to what Ari and the rest of the "Blame Clinton First" crowd, Bush's recession. To paraphrase Sandy Berger, for many in the Bush White House, blaming Clinton has become a substitute for thinking. Anyhoo, ask anyone who isn't hopelessly deluded and they'll tell you that this economy is in the major league toilet, big time. They might offer mitigating factors like terrorism and the war, to which I'd say bull. This administration is either so addicted to crackpot voodoo economics, or so beholden to big business, or both, that they think it's wise fiscal policy to roll back taxes during wartime. And how exactly is the more than $2 trillion of tax cuts to be passed during this presidency supposed to help the economy? Considering that it's targeted squarely to the plutocrats, considering that these taxes are calculated for the long term and will not fully be in effect for years?

What we need is a stimulus. Like the kind we had in '93 that the conservatives whined so much about. A short term stimulus package that encourages spending and investment, not a tax package that merely rewards the rich for being rich.

Given that Bush isn't interested in supplying that stimulus, I think he's beatable, despite the fact that, apart from having a sycophantic media, he will have a $200 million war chest for '04.

Out of a coma of sorts

I've been neglecting this digital soapbox, I know. But things have been strange, okay, and they will continue to be for some time. I quit my job at Sears. It was, er, unfulfilling. My readers, of whom there can't be more than 3, have no doubt missed my poor argumentation and uninformed blather.

The Iraq war is supposedly over. That's a good thing. But I don't suppose I'm alone in thinking that things aren't really going well, above and beyond the most discussed problems like the looting of antiquities museums and the National Library of Iraq. From what I've read and seen, Iraq is still very divided, and it can be argued that the loss of the Baathist state has made it easier for Iran-based Shiite groups to drive further wedges between Shia and Sunni at the very moment when a sense of national unity would be most desirable.

Our would-be anglophone puppet, Achmed Chalebi, who is, surprise, surprise, a white collar criminal as well as someone who hasn't stepped on Iraqi soil since the Eisenhower administration, is not exactly inspiring much love in the country he was picked to lead. In general, the Iraqis see the current situation through a different lens from the pair of rose-colored neocon glasses that brought us to Baghdad.

And what the hell do we think we're doing with Syria? Maybe I don't know enough about international diplomacy to comment, but aren't there ways for the world's sole hyperpower to convince Syria not to harbor Iraq's leadership, etc. without making military threats?

If there's one thing the Bush administration lacks, it's finesse. Endlessly pumped in the weeks before and after Bush's inauguration as a thoroughly professional bunch, they sound like a bunch of angry, unarticulate high school football team jackasses.

I think I just hit on something that's important for me. I recognize the Bush team's attitude. It's the attitude of every jackass in a varsity jacket, driving a beamer, hitting on fourteen year olds; every rich prick I went to high school with. -Who went to the school of throwing his weight around. -Who wasn't afraid of buying popularity with his fists or the threat thereof. A uniter not a divider my ass.

My point is that the world isn't high school. There's no incentive for someone outside the US to admire America's foreign policy bullying. Outside high school, the all-state 250 pound running back who trips undersized freshman and pressures girls into sex doesn't demand the same type of intimidatory respect he commands inside it. It's outside his sphere of strongest social influence. So it is beyond Senior High.

Whereas an American President can, but obviously shouldn't, encourage or condone the characterization of his critics as UnAmerican, or UnPatriotic, and in so doing prescribe certain behaviors or attitudes in US citizens, similar actions lack sense within the context of international relations.

So perhaps Bush could find it in himself to honor at least one campaign promise and project American Power as he said he would, with humility.