Laurence F. Kaplan has an interesting piece in The Washington Post on why the Dean-McGovern comparisons are supported by history.
The problem with the Dean camp trying to spin Dean into being a "moderate" is that the record shows something else entirely. Long before Dean was a political somebody, Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics rated Dean as one of the most liberal governors in the US. Dean’s own record shows that his positions on issues skew far to the left of the American political mainstream despite. Yes, Dean did balance the budget in Vermont – by raising taxes and driving away business. If that’s his plan for the country, good luck.
At the end of the day, Dean is a rabidly anti-war, tax-raising liberal with an attitude – exactly the kind of candidate McGovern was. Both candidates would like to think of themselves as part of the mainstream but don’t sufficiently understand politics outside their liberal clique. Both candidates are being driven to the left by the increasing radicalization of their own party. Both candidates are likely to meet the same ends – a firm political thrashing.
I love the smell of fear in the morning.
Heh… fear Dean? Hell, if Dean gets the nomination I think Karl Rove would be orgasmic…
Jay, you’re really bad at this whole “retaining credibility” thing. Seriously.
See, when you make a statement like “Dean is rabidly anti-war,” you tie your credibility to that statement. When Dean goes on the air with his millions of dollars and shows his remarks from back after 9/11 when he was a vociferous supporter of the war in Afghanistan (a point he continues to make in every debate and on all his television appearances) it will effectively negate the charge that he cannot use the military because he’s afraid of war.
Just like with the drug war, when irrational and inaccurate claims about marijuana are employed and manage to lessen the credibility of arguments against much worse substances, your continued harping about the Dr. Dean that exists only in your mind will serve not to hurt him, but to hurt your arguments. Add to that the continuing and increasing skepticism of a very large swath of the population concerning the administration’s handling of Iraq, and you might actually be seeing a rehash of 1968 and Nixon, and not 1972 and McGovern, when “Peace With Honor” was the choice made, and the President that had lied to get us into war was sent back to Texas.
Dean’s comments on the war in Iraq and national security are the matter of the public record. Dean’s statements clearly show that he does not understand the world situation in regards to terrorism, he would sacrifice US national security to parties like the UN and the French, and had he been President rather than Bush, those mass graves in Iraq would still be filled with innocent Iraqi civilians.
All the spin in the world can’t change the facts that Dean is not in the mainstream and represents the ideology of the far left.
1.) Mass graves stay full even after wars are over and dictators deposed. The only difference is now there are a lot more individual graves to go along with them.
2.) “Anti-war” and “anti-Iraq War” are not the same thing, and you STILL haven’t grasped that distinction.
3.) Most Americans polled agreed with Dean’s assessment about Saddam’s capture (apparently so did Tom Ridge, judging from that Orange Alert), a huge segment still doubts the honesty of W leading up to the invasion, and people who vote health care as their primary concern (a strong plurality of voters) are probably not going to side with the guy that pushed through useless Medicare legislation over the doctor that has already offered a better plan.