Dean plays well in the West
Imagine that, a screaming (literally) liberal plays well in the West. How does that work? The beltway GOP can't figure it out out. But, Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesmen Journal puts it well: "Howard Dean gets Idaho's independent values." Read on:
The Rockies are promising because the political culture is rooted in libertarian, not Republican values, Dean said. He's right: There's a history of success by plain-spoken populist Democrats like four-term Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana.And the GOP has lost its bearings, running up record deficits, starting a war, and intruding in personal lives.
"The Republicans say they believe in small government — just small enough to get inside Terri Schiavo's nursing home room," Dean said, getting off his best line. "Those kinds of decisions belong in individual families, and that's none of the government's business."
Dean said Democrats must shift the debate on moral values to include balanced budgets, good jobs, schools run by locals not feds, fair taxation, a healthy environment and health insurance for all.
Andrus, who introduced Dean, agreed Democrats have to fight Republicans mischaracterizing their views on issues like abortion. "I'm pro-life, but it's not a perfect world," Andrus said. "When tragedy strikes a woman, she's got to have the right to make up her mind. We're not going to let the Karl Roves dictate to us our positions any more."
Jerome Armstrong at MyDD also has a great roundup of Dean's Western Swing, all part of a 50 state tour.
Emmett O'Connell | July 18, 2005 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Bullshit. Dean flys in the face of what a good Western Dem should be. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Posted by: ColoradoKid | Jul 22, 2005 7:50:44 AM
So a Western Dem isn't supposed to be outspoken? How does that work?
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Jul 22, 2005 8:37:07 AM
Dean clearly has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, but he understands the importance of a fifty-state campaign and isn’t afraid to stand for something. The war was his signature issue in 2004, and Bush’s popularity on the war has been on a long slow decline. Is Dean the perfect spokesman? No. But is he someone who can rally the troops when the GOP arguably controls all three branches of the federal government? Yes.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 29, 2005 10:20:13 PM
The following was submitted to all our local newspapers.
Bush Versus the Bill of Rights
Extraordinary renditions, indefinite detention for “unlawful enemy combatants”,
torture of prisoners in American custody (in some cases, torture to death), FBI
domestic surveillance of such “terrorist” groups as the “Vegan Community Project”
and the “Catholic Workers Group”, Pentagon (military) electronic eavesdropping on
such “suspicious incidents” as a group of peaceful Quaker anti-war protesters
meeting in a member’s home; these are activities that the Bush administration has
carried out against real American citizens’ in the so-called “War on Terror”.
The list goes on. There’s Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act that allows federal
agents to do a “sneak and peek” of any citizens home or business. This type of
clandestine invasion includes searching records and seizing property, and requires
no immediate notice to the individual. Also, there is Section 215 of the same law.
This jewel allows the government to secretly collect data on Americans; including
personal, medical, library, and gun ownership records. All this can be accomplished
without any evidence linking the citizen to a specific crime.
Finally, as reported in the New York Times (12-16-05), “President Bush secretly
authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans... to search for
evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required
for domestic spying.” President Bush cites the September 18, 2001 congressional
resolution, formally called the “Authorization for Military Force”, as legal rationale
for his actions. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I seem to remember that the
President has to share power with the judicial and legislative branches of
government. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978
explicitly spells out what the Executive branch must do to engage in domestic
espionage.
According to the Washington Post (12-23-05), FISA established “... a secret
intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance
without a warrant from that court, “except as authorized by statute.” ” The
authorization referred to gives the Executive the right to eavesdrop without warrant
if a warrant is acquired retroactively within seventy-two hours. That’s a lot of
leeway.
The President had the tools to legally perform domestic spying, but chose to
supersede them. With customary arrogance, the President initiated his own policies
and directives, left out the legislative and judicial branches, and, in the minds of
many, broke the law he swore to uphold.
Personally, I will concede that during times of war, the President has to use every
tool available to him for protecting the American people. This may necessitate, as
Vice President Cheney says, “... a strong, robust executive authority.” But this
administration has gone too far.
For those of you who think that President Bush should have all the aforementioned
powers and more, I have a question. What makes you think that this administration,
when in possession of pertinent security information, will actually take desirable
action?
Let’s look at the record. Before 9-11, George Bush ignored warnings about
al-Qaeda from Richard Clarke, (his then chief of counterterrorism), subverted the
Defense Department’s (1999-2001) secret data-mining intelligence project called
“Able Danger” (which purportedly identified Mohamed Atta and three other
hijackers), and ignored the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (P.D.F.) that
warned that followers of bin Laden were planning to hijack airplanes and strike U.S.
targets.
Before the war in Iraq, Bush ignored State Department warnings about
intelligence on Hussein’s nuclear program. He chose, instead, to put full credence
in Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), a now much discredited group
that was entirely separate from the CIA. Warnings from top military and civilian
officials concerning the cost of the war and the number of troops that would be
needed to establish security after the initial invasion were completely ignored.
Further warnings from the State Department about a vigorous post-war insurgency
were dismissed.
Finally, the most recent example of the Bush administration’s failure to deal with
good intelligence is Hurricane Katrina. National Weather Service models showed a
Lever Four or Level Five hurricane smashing straight into New Orleans. Previous
mock-ups from at least two groups of scientists had shown a hurricane of this
magnitude breaching the levees, inundating most of the city with sea water, causing
great loss of life, and leaving thousands homeless. The results of the Bush response
to all this advance knowledge was seen by the whole world.
So again, when this President asks us to forfeit major portions of our Fourth, Fifth
and Sixth Amendment rights and to just trust him, should we meekly acquiesce?
Not me. I think the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
Posted by: Peter Van Laarhoven | Jan 2, 2006 11:01:39 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
